Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells
| Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers | |
|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells |
|||||||
| For more and more Americans, the other side isn’t merely misguided in the extreme. It’s
evil in the absolute, and virtue is measured by the starkness with which that evil is labeled
and reviled. There are emotional satisfactions to this. There is also a terrible price. Frank Bruni, June 17, 2017 I’m O.K. — You’re Pure Evil - The New York Times Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false accusation – without the slightest proof, of course. Comment at https://consortiumnews.com |
The capacity to disseminate misinformation, in order to paint the opposition in wildly negative light, suppressing any rebuttal is not standard tactic of US MSM and that allows sharp polarization of the electorate.
Over the past decade in particular, the internet and social media have changed the game. They speed people to like-minded warriors and give them the impression of broader company or sturdier validation than really exist. The fervor of those in the anti-vaccine movement exemplifies this.
Admirers of a responsible politician or righteous noca can cause coalesce quickly (like was the case during Sanders run), but the same is true for the opposite side. Web sites with forums of likeminded people create echo camera effect, “create a whole new permission structure, a sense of social affirmation for what was once unthinkable...” If words can inspire, then they can also incite or debase . That’s true whether those words are spoken from the right or from the left, and the monetization of partisan combat spans the ideological spectrum.
As the result, people are surrendering restraint and a socially important thing called tact. And this "verbal extremism" guarantees to widen the divisions between us
Whataboutism is a nickname MSM have given that dirty the tactic of discrediting the opponent, when the opponent questions the USA objectivity because it commited similar or worse crimes in the past. Which, of course, if nor deprive, but greatly diminish the USA status as an objective judge.
Neoliberal channels are ready to come up with numerous conspiracy theories, painting the opponent, especially Russia, as ruthless canning opportunists, devoid of any moral principles. But unfortunately this is true about the USA too.
But the key idea of this cynical post-modern media strategy, perfected by neoliberal political technologists is to block/suppress/dilute all opposing views in the "neoliberal noise" (like air dominance in war the US MSM practice full airwave dominance). That's why Putin interview is edited in such a wya as to hide any substantial criticism of the US policy. And not only Putin. This is a universal strategy of deciet. Its goal of the US MSM is to confuse what’s true with what’s not, to the point that the truth vanishes. What it undeniable is that over the past year neoliberals created an artificial reality that matches or exceed the one that existed in the USSR. Along with demonization Russia they also greatly succeeded in demonization of Trump.
This color revolution that Clinton and their supporters in several intelligence agencies launched against Trump in election would be painfully familar to one who observed , for example, Uninian Orange revolution. Templates are identical. just the goals are different (in case of Orange revolution delegitimization of elections to the extent that new elections were called; in case of anti-Trump color revolution the appointment of the Special Prosecutor (aka Grand Inqusitor) was the goal.
This is what must be done by free thinkers if they are to counter and reverse the collectivist nightmare of neoliberalism.Try to avoid false trick of "shaming" under some artificial labels like communist or racist: Social justice relies on shaming tactics, usually by slandering an opponent with a label that does not really apply to him, in order to control his arguments and behavior. If you don’t care about being called a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a homophobe, etc., then there is not really much that they can do to you.
Do not self-censor: This does not mean you should go out of your way to be antagonistic or act like an ass, but the thought police have power only if you give power to them. Say what you want to say when you want to say it, and do it with a smile. Let the PC police froth and scream until they have an aneurism. neoliberals are generally weaklings. They avoid physical confrontation like they avoid logic, so why fear them?
Demand facts to back claims: neoliberals tend to argue on the basis of opinion rather than fact. Present facts to counter their claims, and demand facts and evidence in return. Opinions are irrelevant if the person is not willing to present supporting facts when asked.
Do not play the game of "unconscious bias": If social justice cultists can't counter your position with facts or logic, they will invariably turn to the old standby that you are limited in your insight because you have not lived in the shoes of a - (insert victim group here). I agree. In fact, I would point out that this reality of limited perception also applies to THEM as well. They have not lived in my shoes, therefore they are in no position to claim I enjoy "privilege" while they do not. This is why facts and evidence are so important, and why anecdotal evidence and personal feelings are irrelevant where cultural Marxism is concerned.
Let neoliberals know their fears and feelings do not matter: No one is entitled to have their feelings addressed by others. And, a person’s fears are ultimately unimportant. Whether the issue is the nonexistent “rape culture” or the contempt neoliberals feel over private gun ownership, their irrational fears are not our concern. Why should any individual relinquish his liberties in the name of placating frightened nobodies?
Demand that banksters respect your inherent individual rights: Banksters message is that there is no such thing as inherent rights or liberties and that all rights are arbitrary and subject to the whims of the group or the state. This is false. I have written extensively in the past on inherent rights, inborn psychological contents and natural law, referencing diverse luminaries, scientists and thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas, Carl Gustave Jung, Steven Pinker, etc., and I welcome readers to study my many articles on individualism. Freedom is an inborn conception with universally understood aspects. Period. No group or collective is more important than individual liberty. No artificial society has preeminence over the individuals within that society. As long as a person is not directly impeding the life, liberty, prosperity and privacy of another person, he should be left alone.
Maintain your rights as long as they do not hurt other people: PC cultists will invariably argue that every person, whether he knows it or not, is indirectly harming others with his attitude, his beliefs, his refusal to associate, even his very breathing. "We live in a society", they say, "and everything we do affects everyone else...". Don’t take such accusations seriously; these people do not understand how freedom works.
Say, for instance, hypothetically, that I refuse to bake a gay wedding cake for a couple and I am accused of violating their rights in the name of preserving my own. I would immediately point out that no one is entitled to a gay wedding cake, baked by me or anyone else and I have every right to choose my associations based on whatever criteria I see fit. Now, a corrupt government entity may claim I do not have that right. But the fact is I do, and no one — not even government — can force me to bake a cake if I don’t want to. Also, I would point out that the gay couple in question has every right in a free society to bake their OWN damn cake or open their own cake shop to compete with mine. This is how freedom works. It is not based on collective entitlement; it is based on personal responsibility.
Refuse to deny the scientific fact of biological gender: Gender is first and foremost a genetic imperative. Society only partially determine gender roles; nature does the most. A man who chops up his body and takes hormone pills to look like a woman is not and will never be a woman. A woman who tapes down her breasts and gets a short haircut will never be a man. There is no such thing as “transgendered” people. No amount of social justice or wishful thinking will ever allow them to reverse their genetic proclivities. Their psychological and sexual leanings do not change their inborn biological reality.
By extension, we should refuse to play along with this nonsense. I will never refer to a man in a wig and dress as a “woman.” I will never refer to a woman with identity issues as “transgendered.” They are what nature made them, and we should not police our pronouns just to falsely reassure them that they can deny nature.
Deny both neoliberal idea of "greed is good" and the illusion of Utopian equality: "Greed is good" proved to be an effective instrument of destruction of the USA society in just 35 years. Now we have "Dis-united States of America." Not the "United States of America." Like traffic light regulation perform a vital fuinction and removing vital regulations inflict a heavy price of the society. Opposite is also true: too much regulations also inflict a price. There is no such thing as pure social equality. It was never achieved in societies that try it, such as early the USSR. Society is not a homogeneous entity, it is an abstraction built around a group of unique individuals. Individuals can be naturally gifted, or naturally challenged. But there will always be some people who are more apt towards success than others and the success of the society depends of promoting such people to more important roles. Financial remuneration actually can pray here secondary role, but different in status is unavoidable. Primates-related concept of 'alpha male" is a precursor to social differentiation in human societies.
I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of equality of opportunity, which is exactly what we have in this country (except in the world of elitist finance which is purely driven by nepotism). I do have a problem with the lie of universal equality through engineered means.
Standards of success should not be lowered in order to accommodate the least skilled people to facilitate artificial parity. For example, I constantly hear the argument that more people with victim group status should be given greater representation in positions of influence and regard within our culture, from science and engineering, to media, to business CEO's, to politics, etc. The key word here is "given", rather than "earned". There is nothing wrong with one group of people excelling in a field more than another group, and there is nothing wrong with inequality when it comes to individual achievement. We must begin refusing to reward people for mediocrity and punishing success simply because the winners are not part of a designated victim group.
If you are a man, embrace your role: I am a man and cannot claim to know what specific solutions women should take to counter cultural Marxism. I would love to read an article written on the subject by a woman in the Liberty Movement. I will say that men in particular have a considerable task ahead in terms of their personal endeavors if they hope to repair the destruction of social justice.
For thousands of years, men have been the primary industrial force behind human progress. Today, they are relegated to cubicles and customer service, to video games and Web fantasies, to drug addictions and a lack of responsibility. If we have any chance of undoing the damage of cultural Marxism, modern men must take on their original roles as producers, inventors, entrepreneurs, protectors, builders and warriors once again. They should do this for their own benefit, and not for the validation of others.
You don’t have to prove to anyone you do "manly things", just go out and do them. Most importantly, become dangerous. Men are meant to be dangerous beings. That does not mean we are meant to be indiscriminately violent (just as women aren’t meant to be indiscriminately violent), but we are supposed to be threatening to those who would threaten us. Modern society has NOT removed the need for masculinity and I believe people will begin realizing this the more our culture sinks into economic despair. Train in martial arts, learn tactical firearms handling, go hunting and don’t take lip from people. In my opinion, every man should know how to kill things, even if he never plans on using those abilities.
Resist neoliberal brainwashing of your children: It’s simple, if you don’t want your kids propagandized, if you truly want them to be free from collectivist conditioning, then you will make the sacrifice and extract them from public schooling. With the introduction of Common Core into U.S. schools in particular, there is no other recourse but home schooling to prevent the brainwashing of cultural Marxism. If you do not do this, you are relying on the hope that your children will escape with their critical thinking abilities intact. Some do, and some don’t. Others turn into mindless social justice zombies. You can give them an advantage by removing them from a poisonous environment, and that is what matters.
The insane lie that neoliberals seem to have conned themselves and others into believing is that their “activism” is somehow anti-establishment. In fact, social justice is constantly coddled and supported by the establishment.
From politicians to judges to media pundits to the blogosphere, the overwhelming majority of people in positions of traditional power (even in supposedly conservative circles) have been more than happy to become the enforcers of the neoliberal agenda (including "fake democratization" agenda). There is no establishment for the army of enforces of political correctness to fight; the establishment bias works vastly more in favor of their ideology than any other. Neoliberals ARE the establishment.
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
Sep 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers.
Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media, The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war.
The result was a disastrous intervention that led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and continued instability in Iraq, including the formation of the Islamic State.
In a massive Times ' article published on Thursday, entitled, "A Plot to Subvert an Election: Unravelling the Russia Story So Far," it seems that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti have succumbed to the same thinking that doubled down on Iraq.
They claim to have a "mountain of evidence" but what they offer would be invisible on the Great Plains.
With the mid-terms looming and Special Counsel Robert Mueller unable to so far come up with any proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election -- the central Russia-gate charge -- the Times does it for him, regurgitating a Russia-gate Round-Up of every unsubstantiated allegation that has been made -- deceptively presented as though it's all been proven.
Mueller: No collusion so far.
This is a reaffirmation of the faith, a recitation of what the Russia-gate faithful want to believe is true. But mere repetition will not make it so.
The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign."
But this schizoid approach leads to the admission that "no public evidence has emerged showing that [Trump's] campaign conspired with Russia."
The Times also adds: "There is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved."
This is an extraordinary statement. If it cannot be "proved or disproved" what is the point of this entire exercise: of the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and even of this very New York Times article?
Attempting to prove this constructed story without proof is the very point of this piece.
A Banner DayThe 10,000-word article opens with a story of a pro-Russian banner that was hung from the Manhattan Bridge on Putin's birthday, and an anti-Obama banner hung a month later from the Memorial Bridge in Washington just after the 2016 election.
On public property these are constitutionally-protected acts of free speech. But for the Times , "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history."
Kremlin: Guilty, says NYT. (Robert Parry, 2016)
Why? Because the Times tells us that the "earliest promoters" of images of the banners were from social media accounts linked to a St. Petersburg-based click-bait farm, a company called the Internet Research Agency. The company is not legally connected to the Kremlin and any political coordination is pure speculation. IRA has been explained convincingly as a commercial and not political operation. Its aim is get and sell "eyeballs."
For instance the company conducted pro and anti-Trump rallies and social media messages, as well as pro and anti-Clinton. But the Times , in classic omission mode, only reports on "the anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia." Sharing with "millions" of people on social media does not mean that millions of people have actually seen those messages. And if they had there is little way to determine whether it affected how they voted, especially as the messages attacked and praised both candidates.
The Times reporters take much at face value, which they then themselves undermine. Most prominently, they willfully mistake an indictment for a conviction, as if they do not know the difference.
This is in the category of Journalism 101. An indictment need not include evidence and under U.S. law an indictment is not evidence. Juries are instructed that an indictment is merely an accusation. That the Times commits this cardinal sin of journalism to purposely confuse allegations with a conviction is not only inexcusable but strikes a fatal blow to the credibility of the entire article.
It actually reports that "Today there is no doubt who hacked the D.N.C. and the Clinton campaign. A detailed indictment of 12 officers of Russia's military intelligence agency, filed in July by Mr. Mueller, documents their every move, including their break-in techniques, their tricks to hide inside the Democrats' networks and even their Google searches."
Who needs courts when suspects can be tried and convicted in the press?
What the Times is not taking into account is that Mueller knows his indictment will never be tested in court because the GRU agents will never be arrested, there is no extradition treaty between the U.S. and Russia and even if it were miraculously to see the inside of a courtroom Mueller can invoke states secrets privilege to show the "evidence" to a judge with clearance in his chambers who can then emerge to pronounce "Guilty!" without a jury having seen that evidence.
This is what makes Mueller's indictment more a political than a legal document, giving him wide leeway to put whatever he wants into it. He knew it would never be tested and that once it was released, a supine press would do the rest to cement it in the public consciousness as a conviction, just as this Times piece tries to do.
Errors of Commission and OmissionThere are a series of erroneous assertions and omissions in the Times piece, omitted because they would disturb the narrative:
- Not mentioning that the FBI was never given access to the DNC server but instead gullibly believing the assertion of the anti-Russian private company CrowdStrike, paid for by the DNC, that the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief found in metadata proves Russia was behind the hack. Only someone wanting to be caught would leave such a clue.
- Incredibly believing that Trump would have launched a covert intelligence operation on live national television by asking Russia to get 30,000 missing emails.
Trump: Sarcastically calls on Russia to get Clinton emails.
Distorts Geo-Politics
- Ignoring the possible role of the MI6, the CIA and the FBI setting up Trump campaign members George Papadopoulos and Carter Page as "colluders" with Russia.
- Repeating misleading statements about the infamous Trump Tower meeting, in which Trump's son did not seek dirt on Clinton but was offered it by a music promoter, not the Russian government. None was apparently produced. It's never been established that a campaign receiving opposition research from foreigners is illegal (though the Times has decided that it is) and only the Clinton campaign was known to have obtained any.
- Making no mention at all of the now discredited opposition research dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC from foreign sources and used by the FBI to get a warrant to spy on Carter Page and potentially other campaign members.
- Dismissing the importance of politicized text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page because the pair were "skewered regularly on Mr. (Sean) Hannity's show as the 'Trump-hating F.B.I. lovebirds.'"
- Putting down to "hyped news stories" the legitimate fear of a new McCarthyism against anyone who questions the "official" story being peddled here by the Times .
- Seeking to get inside Putin's head to portray him as a petulant child seeking personal revenge against Hillary Clinton, a tale long peddled by Clinton and accepted without reservation by the Times.
- Pretending to get into Julian Assange's head as well, saying he "shared Mr. Putin's hatred of Mrs. Clinton and had a soft spot for Russia." And that Assange "also obscured the Russian role by fueling a right-wing conspiracy theory he knew to be false."
- Ignoring findings backed by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that the DNC emails were leaked and not hacked.
- Erroneously linking the timing of WikiLeaks' Podesta emails to deflect attention from the "Access Hollywood" tape, as debunked in Consortium News by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who worked with WikiLeaks on those emails.
The piece swallows whole the Establishment's geo-strategic Russia narrative, as all corporate media do. It buys without hesitation the story that the U.S. seeks to spread democracy around the world, and not pursue its economic and geo-strategic interests as do all imperial powers.
The Times reports that, "The United States had backed democratic, anti-Russian forces in the so-called color revolutions on Russia's borders, in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004." The Times has also spread the erroneous story of a democratic revolution in Ukraine in 2014, omitting crucial evidence of a U.S.-backed coup.
The Times disapprovingly dismisses Trump having said on the campaign trail that "Russia was not an existential threat, but a potential ally in beating back terrorist groups," when an objective view of the world would come to this very conclusion.
The story also shoves aside American voters' real concerns that led to Trump's election. For the Times, economic grievances and rejection of perpetual war played no role in the election of Trump. Instead it was Russian influence that led Americans to vote for him, an absurd proposition defied by a Gallup poll in July that showed Americans' greatest concerns being economic. Their concerns about Russia were statistically insignificant at less than one percent.
Ignoring Americans' real concerns exposes the class interests of Times staffers and editors who are evidently above Americans' economic and social suffering. The Times piece blames Russia for social "divisions" and undermining American democracy, classic projection onto Moscow away from the real culprits for these problems: bi-partisan American plutocrats. That also insults average Americans by suggesting they cannot think for themselves and pursue their own interests without Russia telling them what to do.
Establishment reporters insulate themselves from criticism by retreating into the exclusive Establishment club they think they inhabit. It is from there that they vicariously draw their strength from powerful people they cover, which they should instead be scrutinizing. Validated by being close to power, Establishment reporters don't take seriously anyone outside of the club, such as a website like Consortium News.
But on rare occasions they are forced to take note of what outsiders are saying. Because of the role The New York Timesplayed in the catastrophe of Iraq its editors took the highly unusual move of apologizing to its readers. Will we one day read a similar apology about the paper's coverage of Russia-gate? Tags Politics
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2018 | www.rt.com
Sun deletes model's 'Putin wants to kill me' story amid claims of Salisbury poisoning hoax Published time: 20 Sep, 2018 14:05 Edited time: 21 Sep, 2018 13:28 Get short URL
© missannawebb / Instagram In one of the least surprising developments in an ongoing story, the Sun newspaper has been forced to remove a report from its website in which a Russian model claims Vladimir Putin is trying to kill her. The article has since been removed " for legal reasons, " and, some are speculating, probably for some 'truth' reasons as well.
Russian-born Anna Shapiro and her British husband Alex King were at the center of another poisoning scare in Salisbury last Sunday in an incident that appeared at first to echo the attack on ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the very same city.
Read more'Putin wants me dead': Russian 'model' seduces UK tabloids with new Salisbury poisoning claims
The details were compelling, a reported poisoning in another Italian eatery chain in Salisbury (this time Prezzo), a Russian was involved, and the police closed off streets and deployed specialists in hazmat suits.
The story also carried a hint of too-good-to-be-true, but The Sun was so seduced by Shapiro's claim that Putin was after her, it ran a front page splash. The fact she was willing to claim " Putin wants me dead " while at the same time doing a sexy photo shoot probably helped.
There was no sign of nerve agents being used, but The Sun claimed to have 'security sources' which told them rat poison may have been used against the couple, while claiming King was fighting for his life. Soon after the hospital confirmed that actually both had been discharged.
However, other details began to emerge after the Sun splashed. The police, who have not suggested any crime actually took place, admitted one of their lines of inquiry into what happened in Salisbury's Prezzo is now whether it may have been a hoax.
Then the BBC reported that King, who was reportedly found foaming at the mouth in the restaurant's toilet, is a "convicted criminal who once hoaxed Prince Charles" and had previously been convicted of "distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children."
Then the Daily Mirror reported that King is an alleged drug dealer, and Shapiro is a high-class escort who told friends she was a " honeytrap spy " used by Israel's Mossad to seduce men.
A Russian 'model' has claimed that Putin tried to 'poison' her! 🐭🇷🇺👩 pic.twitter.com/9dYNeIWNZ3
-- #ICYMI (@ICYMIvideo) September 20, 2018Essentially what appeared to be an extremely questionable story from the very start seems to be disintegrating, so why would a national newspaper decide to run this story at all without doing a basic background checks?
The obvious conclusion is simply that it's too easy to make any accusation you like about Russia because readers are willing to believe anything in the current political climate.
The Sun said in a statement: " Like any newspaper, we were keen to talk to those at the centre of the incident and give them the opportunity to share with the public their version of events ."
But were they keen to check whether any of it was accurate?
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com
annamaria , says: July 14, 2018 at 3:49 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack I understand perfectly what I read, and even make a direct quotation:I then ridicule such mularkey for what it is, unsubstantiated ' gibberish '.
Those in power in Kiev had several times already attempted to draw Moscow into the civil war, directly and through a NATO intervention
You want to defend this BS then go to it, otherwise put up or shut up! :-)
The same goes for Skeptikal. Here is a British 'method' of slandering the non-obedient Russians. In terms of dishonesty, it is about the same as the US/EU/Ukrainian version of the MH17 tragedy:
"The Holes in the Official Skripal Story," by Craig MURRAY:https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/07/14/holes-in-official-skripal-story.html
"The nub of the British government's approach has been the shocking willingness of the corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made, even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that finding. In fact, while the Soviet Union did develop the "novichok" class of nerve agents, the programme involved scientists from all over the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, Armenia and Georgia, as I myself learnt when I visited the newly decommissioned Nukus testing facility in Uzbekistan in 2002."
|
|
|
Sep 06, 2018 | cluborlov.blogspot.com
The Brits have just provided my previous article, The Truthers and The Fakers, with a tidy little case study: the very next day after I published it Theresa May's government stepped into its role as one of the world's premier Fakers and unleashed the next installment of fake news on the Skripal poisoning. We can use this as training material in learning how to spot and discard fakes.
The fake story that May has been pushing is that it is "highly likely" that the Kremlin ordered a hit on the former British spy Sergei Skripal (and his daughter) using a "Russian-made" chemical weapon called "Novichok." In turn, from what we already knew, it is highly likely that this story is a complete and utter fake. As I explained in the previous article, it is not our job to establish what really happened. We would be unable to do so with any degree of certainty without gaining access to state secrets. But we don't need to; all we need to do is establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that the British government's story is a foolishly, incompetently concocted fabrication. Doing so will then allow us to properly classify the British press, which repeats this nonsense as fact, and the British public, which accepts it unquestioningly at face value. Then we can drop the erroneous appellation "great" -- because great nations don't act so stupidly
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers.
Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media, The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war.
The result was a disastrous intervention that led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and continued instability in Iraq, including the formation of the Islamic State.
In a massive Times ' article published on Thursday, entitled, "A Plot to Subvert an Election: Unravelling the Russia Story So Far," it seems that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti have succumbed to the same thinking that doubled down on Iraq.
They claim to have a "mountain of evidence" but what they offer would be invisible on the Great Plains.
With the mid-terms looming and Special Counsel Robert Mueller unable to so far come up with any proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election -- the central Russia-gate charge -- the Times does it for him, regurgitating a Russia-gate Round-Up of every unsubstantiated allegation that has been made -- deceptively presented as though it's all been proven.
Mueller: No collusion so far.
This is a reaffirmation of the faith, a recitation of what the Russia-gate faithful want to believe is true. But mere repetition will not make it so.
The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign."
But this schizoid approach leads to the admission that "no public evidence has emerged showing that [Trump's] campaign conspired with Russia."
The Times also adds: "There is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved."
This is an extraordinary statement. If it cannot be "proved or disproved" what is the point of this entire exercise: of the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and even of this very New York Times article?
Attempting to prove this constructed story without proof is the very point of this piece.
A Banner DayThe 10,000-word article opens with a story of a pro-Russian banner that was hung from the Manhattan Bridge on Putin's birthday, and an anti-Obama banner hung a month later from the Memorial Bridge in Washington just after the 2016 election.
On public property these are constitutionally-protected acts of free speech. But for the Times , "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history."
Kremlin: Guilty, says NYT. (Robert Parry, 2016)
Why? Because the Times tells us that the "earliest promoters" of images of the banners were from social media accounts linked to a St. Petersburg-based click-bait farm, a company called the Internet Research Agency. The company is not legally connected to the Kremlin and any political coordination is pure speculation. IRA has been explained convincingly as a commercial and not political operation. Its aim is get and sell "eyeballs."
For instance the company conducted pro and anti-Trump rallies and social media messages, as well as pro and anti-Clinton. But the Times , in classic omission mode, only reports on "the anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia." Sharing with "millions" of people on social media does not mean that millions of people have actually seen those messages. And if they had there is little way to determine whether it affected how they voted, especially as the messages attacked and praised both candidates.
The Times reporters take much at face value, which they then themselves undermine. Most prominently, they willfully mistake an indictment for a conviction, as if they do not know the difference.
This is in the category of Journalism 101. An indictment need not include evidence and under U.S. law an indictment is not evidence. Juries are instructed that an indictment is merely an accusation. That the Times commits this cardinal sin of journalism to purposely confuse allegations with a conviction is not only inexcusable but strikes a fatal blow to the credibility of the entire article.
It actually reports that "Today there is no doubt who hacked the D.N.C. and the Clinton campaign. A detailed indictment of 12 officers of Russia's military intelligence agency, filed in July by Mr. Mueller, documents their every move, including their break-in techniques, their tricks to hide inside the Democrats' networks and even their Google searches."
Who needs courts when suspects can be tried and convicted in the press?
What the Times is not taking into account is that Mueller knows his indictment will never be tested in court because the GRU agents will never be arrested, there is no extradition treaty between the U.S. and Russia and even if it were miraculously to see the inside of a courtroom Mueller can invoke states secrets privilege to show the "evidence" to a judge with clearance in his chambers who can then emerge to pronounce "Guilty!" without a jury having seen that evidence.
This is what makes Mueller's indictment more a political than a legal document, giving him wide leeway to put whatever he wants into it. He knew it would never be tested and that once it was released, a supine press would do the rest to cement it in the public consciousness as a conviction, just as this Times piece tries to do.
Errors of Commission and OmissionThere are a series of erroneous assertions and omissions in the Times piece, omitted because they would disturb the narrative:
- Not mentioning that the FBI was never given access to the DNC server but instead gullibly believing the assertion of the anti-Russian private company CrowdStrike, paid for by the DNC, that the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief found in metadata proves Russia was behind the hack. Only someone wanting to be caught would leave such a clue.
- Incredibly believing that Trump would have launched a covert intelligence operation on live national television by asking Russia to get 30,000 missing emails.
Trump: Sarcastically calls on Russia to get Clinton emails.
Distorts Geo-Politics
- Ignoring the possible role of the MI6, the CIA and the FBI setting up Trump campaign members George Papadopoulos and Carter Page as "colluders" with Russia.
- Repeating misleading statements about the infamous Trump Tower meeting, in which Trump's son did not seek dirt on Clinton but was offered it by a music promoter, not the Russian government. None was apparently produced. It's never been established that a campaign receiving opposition research from foreigners is illegal (though the Times has decided that it is) and only the Clinton campaign was known to have obtained any.
- Making no mention at all of the now discredited opposition research dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC from foreign sources and used by the FBI to get a warrant to spy on Carter Page and potentially other campaign members.
- Dismissing the importance of politicized text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page because the pair were "skewered regularly on Mr. (Sean) Hannity's show as the 'Trump-hating F.B.I. lovebirds.'"
- Putting down to "hyped news stories" the legitimate fear of a new McCarthyism against anyone who questions the "official" story being peddled here by the Times .
- Seeking to get inside Putin's head to portray him as a petulant child seeking personal revenge against Hillary Clinton, a tale long peddled by Clinton and accepted without reservation by the Times.
- Pretending to get into Julian Assange's head as well, saying he "shared Mr. Putin's hatred of Mrs. Clinton and had a soft spot for Russia." And that Assange "also obscured the Russian role by fueling a right-wing conspiracy theory he knew to be false."
- Ignoring findings backed by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that the DNC emails were leaked and not hacked.
- Erroneously linking the timing of WikiLeaks' Podesta emails to deflect attention from the "Access Hollywood" tape, as debunked in Consortium News by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who worked with WikiLeaks on those emails.
The piece swallows whole the Establishment's geo-strategic Russia narrative, as all corporate media do. It buys without hesitation the story that the U.S. seeks to spread democracy around the world, and not pursue its economic and geo-strategic interests as do all imperial powers.
The Times reports that, "The United States had backed democratic, anti-Russian forces in the so-called color revolutions on Russia's borders, in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004." The Times has also spread the erroneous story of a democratic revolution in Ukraine in 2014, omitting crucial evidence of a U.S.-backed coup.
The Times disapprovingly dismisses Trump having said on the campaign trail that "Russia was not an existential threat, but a potential ally in beating back terrorist groups," when an objective view of the world would come to this very conclusion.
The story also shoves aside American voters' real concerns that led to Trump's election. For the Times, economic grievances and rejection of perpetual war played no role in the election of Trump. Instead it was Russian influence that led Americans to vote for him, an absurd proposition defied by a Gallup poll in July that showed Americans' greatest concerns being economic. Their concerns about Russia were statistically insignificant at less than one percent.
Ignoring Americans' real concerns exposes the class interests of Times staffers and editors who are evidently above Americans' economic and social suffering. The Times piece blames Russia for social "divisions" and undermining American democracy, classic projection onto Moscow away from the real culprits for these problems: bi-partisan American plutocrats. That also insults average Americans by suggesting they cannot think for themselves and pursue their own interests without Russia telling them what to do.
Establishment reporters insulate themselves from criticism by retreating into the exclusive Establishment club they think they inhabit. It is from there that they vicariously draw their strength from powerful people they cover, which they should instead be scrutinizing. Validated by being close to power, Establishment reporters don't take seriously anyone outside of the club, such as a website like Consortium News.
But on rare occasions they are forced to take note of what outsiders are saying. Because of the role The New York Timesplayed in the catastrophe of Iraq its editors took the highly unusual move of apologizing to its readers. Will we one day read a similar apology about the paper's coverage of Russia-gate? Tags Politics
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2018 | www.wsws.org
The New York Times published a fraudulent and provocative "special report" Thursday titled "The plot to subvert an election."
Replete with sinister looking graphics portraying Russian President Vladimir Putin as a villainous cyberage cyclops, the report purports to untangle "the threads of the most effective foreign campaign in history to disrupt and influence an American election."
The report could serve as a textbook example of CIA-directed misinformation posing as "in-depth" journalism. There is no news, few substantiated facts and no significant analysis presented in the 10,000-word report, which sprawls over 11 ad-free pages of a separate section produced by the Times.
The article begins with an ominous-sounding recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in New York City and Washington in October and November of 2016, one bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker," and the other that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye Murderer."
It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." The article begins with an ominous-sounding recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in New York City and Washington in October and November of 2016, one bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker," and the other that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye Murderer."
It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history."
Why does it "appear" to be the Kremlin? What is the evidence to support this claim? Among the 8.5 million inhabitants of New York City and another 700,000 in Washington, D.C., aren't there enough people who might despise Obama as much as, if not a good deal more than, Vladimir Putin?
This absurd passage with its "appeared" and "may well have" combined with the speculation about the Kremlin extending its evil grip onto "United States soil" sets the tone for the entire piece, which consists of the regurgitation of unsubstantiated allegations made by the US intelligence agencies, Democratic and Republican capitalist politicians and the Times itself.
The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension" of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed, despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle class that constitute the target audience of the Times , polls have indicated that the charges of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 presidential election have evoked little popular response among the
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2018 | larouchepac.com
Friday afternoon, the New York Times once again took up the coup against Donald Trump, not as a news matter, but as a witting psychological warfare instrument for those bent on trying to illegally remove this President from office. They report, with great fervor, that shortly after FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed using the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office, and himself wearing a wire to record the President at the White House. Rosenstein is supervising the Mueller Special Counsel investigation of the President. Rosenstein has heatedly denied the Times story.
This leak occurs in a context where the coup itself is unraveling. The President ordered the declassification of foundational documents in the coup itself on Monday, September 17, including tweets from Robert Mueller's central witness, Jim Comey. According to press accounts, "our allies" called to complain, most certainly the British and the Australians who instigated this coup together with Barack Obama and John Brennan. In addition, the so-called gang of eight Senators and Congressmen who get briefed by the intelligence community had their knickers in a full knot. On Friday, shortly before the Times story broke, the President delayed release of the documents, placing their release in the hands of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, while insisting that the documents be reviewed and released in an expedited fashion. He also reserved the right to move forward himself if the matter was not handled with expedition. This was a sound move by Trump and the documents will be released.
Also this week, Mueller's first victim, former Trump Campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos began press appearances detailing how he was set up by the British and the CIA in the evidence fabrication phase of the Russiagate investigation, during the Spring of 2016. There is a sitting grand jury in Washington D.C. hearing evidence concerning fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. According to various sources, that grand jury is also hearing evidence about criminal abuses of the FISA court process and media leaks.
The press reporting to date on the story points to Andrew McCabe or Robert Mueller as the source of the leak to the New York Times .
McCabe's memos are reportedly the source of the story and he has provided those to Mueller.
There is no doubt that Rosenstein has been a corrupt force throughout the ongoing coup against the President.
The question, which allies of the President should be asking, however, is why is this occurring now? In this strategic context? From the grey lady ragsheet that is the chief propaganda arm of the coup?
The President should demand that the Inspector General Horowitz immediately obtain and review the McCabe memos and interview everyone involved in the referenced in the Times and any follow-on meetings under oath, as well as investigating the source of the leak to the New York Times , providing him an immediate report for his consideration by early next week.
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org
A new article from the Wall Street Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion dollars for war profiteers.
This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are now eating leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war plutocrats.
If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.
It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And they won't.
The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.
The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump because, as Julian Assange once said , they are Trump.
In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition.
In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.
The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression.
If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie factory, we can wake the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.
Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com .
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
daffyDuct , Sep 20, 2018 8:21:06 PM | link
Woodward, "Fear" pg 82-85"After the security briefing and everyone cleared out, McCabe shut the door to
Priebus's office. This is very weird, thought Priebus, who was standing by his
desk.
"You know this story in The New York Times?" Priebus knew it all too well.
McCabe was referring to a recent Times story of February 14 that stated, "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016
presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the elections, according to four current and former American officials."
The story was one of the first bombs to go off about alleged Trump-Russian
connections after Flynn's resignation.
"It's total bullshit," McCabe said. "It's not true, and we want you to know
that. It's grossly overstated."
Oh my God, thought Priebus.
"Andrew," he said to the FBI deputy, "I'm getting killed."
The story about Russia and election meddling seemed to be running 24/7 on
cable news, driving Trump bananas and therefore driving Priebus bananas.
"This is crazy," Trump had told Priebus. "We've got to stop it. We need to
end the story."
McCabe had just walked in with a big gift, a Valentine's Day present. I'm
going to be the hero of this entire West Wing, Priebus thought.
"Can you help me?" Priebus asked. "Could this knockdown of the story be
made public?"
"Call me in a couple of hours," McCabe said. "I will ask around and I'll let
you know. I'll see what I can do."
Priebus practically ran to report to Trump the good news that the FBI would
soon be shooting down the Times story.
Two hours passed and no call from McCabe. Priebus called him."I'm sorry, I can't," McCabe said.
"There's nothing I can do about it. I tried,but if we start issuing comments on individual stories, we'll be doing statements
every three days." The FBI could not become a clearinghouse for the accuracy of news stories. If the FBI tried to debunk certain stories, a failure to comment could be seen as a confirmation."Andrew, you're the one that came to my office to tell me this is a BS story,
and now you're telling me there's nothing you can do?"
McCabe said that was his position.
"This is insanity," Priebus said. "What am I supposed to do? Just suffer, bleed out?"
"Give me a couple more hours."
Nothing happened. No call from the FBI. Priebus tried to explain to Trump,
who was waiting for a recanting. It was another reason for Trump to distrust and
hate the FBI, a pernicious tease that left them dangling.
About a week later on February 24 CNN reported an exclusive: "FBI Refused
White House Request to Knock Down Recent Trump-Russia Story." Priebus
was cast as trying to manipulate the FBI for political purposes.
The White House tried and failed to correct the story and show that McCabe
had initiated the matter.Four months later on June 8, Comey testified under oath publicly that the
original New York Times story on the Trump campaign aides' contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials "in the main was not true."
BM , Sep 21, 2018 8:38:36 AM | link
The Mueller Hoax is unraveling.David , Sep 20, 2018 4:37:34 PM | link
Posted by: Sid2 | Sep 20, 2018 3:03:44 PM | 3The Mueller Hoax is unravelling, and concommittently the NYT is digging in; ergo , the NYT is also unravelling! The NYT will permanently damage its reputation with its own readers.
I love how the NYT mentions how no public evidence has emerged, to skirt around the fact that if there were internal evidence (from some gov agency or private citizen) it would've leaked by now. There is no such thing as evidence which hasn't been leaked in an alleged scandal of this size.karlof1 , Sep 20, 2018 4:40:58 PM | linkFurther, the corporate news media gave Trump something like $2 billion dollars worth of advertising in free airtime. That's a much larger impact -- around 20 times Clinton's campaign costs IIRC -- than any alleged hacked e-mails (though the e-mails were leaked not hacked, and that played a role. As well as the FBI's investigation into Clinton's illegal email server which was public fact at the time) or social media interference.
Banks, defense contractors and oil companies decide who the President is and what their Cabinet will look like (see Obama's leaked CitiBank memo "recommending" executives to his 2009 Cabinet). Russians and the American people do not.
John Pilger's essay: Hold the Front Page, the Reporters are Missing appropriately describes this BigLie media item b dissected, while also observing, "Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has changed in recent years," prior to providing Why this is so.karlof1 , Sep 20, 2018 4:59:56 PM | link15 Cont'd:karlof1 , Sep 20, 2018 4:59:56 PM | link james , Sep 20, 2018 5:04:45 PM | linkWant to highlight this additional bit from Pilger:
"Journalism students should study this [New book from Media Lens Propaganda Blitz ] to understand that the source of "fake news" is not only trollism, or the likes of Fox news, or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom the Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo. [My emphasis]
IMO, the bolded text well describes BigLie Media. I wonder what George Seldes would say differently from Pilger if he were alive. Unfortunately, Pilger failed to include MoA as a source in his short list of sites having journalistic integrity.
on journalism and it being usurped by social media behemoths google, facebook, twitter and etc - i found this cbc radio) interview last night worth recommending..jrkrideau , Sep 20, 2018 5:46:02 PM | linkThat New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best!Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence.
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
by Tyler Durden Fri, 09/21/2018 - 22:25 1 SHARES Authored by John Pilger via ConsortiumNews.com,
So much of mainstream journalism has descended to the level of a cult-like formula of bias, hearsay and omission. Subjectivism is all; slogans and outrage are proof enough. What matters is 'perception'...
The death of Robert Parry earlier this year felt like a farewell to the age of the reporter. Parry was "a trailblazer for independent journalism", wrote Seymour Hersh, with whom he shared much in common.
Hersh revealed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Cambodia, Parry exposed Iran-Contra, a drugs and gun-running conspiracy that led to the White House. In 2016, they separately produced compelling evidence that the Assad government in Syria had not used chemical weapons. They were not forgiven.
Driven from the "mainstream", Hersh must publish his work outside the United States. Parry set up his own independent news website Consortium News, where, in a final piece following a stroke, he referred to journalism's veneration of "approved opinions" while "unapproved evidence is brushed aside or disparaged regardless of its quality."
Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has changed in recent years. Dissent tolerated when I joined a national newspaper in Britain in the 1960s has regressed to a metaphoric underground as liberal capitalism moves towards a form of corporate dictatorship.
This is a seismic shift, with journalists policing the new "groupthink", as Parry called it, dispensing its myths and distractions, pursuing its enemies.
Witness the witch-hunts against refugees and immigrants, the willful abandonment by the "MeToo" zealots of our oldest freedom, presumption of innocence, the anti-Russia racism and anti-Brexit hysteria, the growing anti-China campaign and the suppression of a warning of world war.
With many if not most independent journalists barred or ejected from the "mainstream", a corner of the Internet has become a vital source of disclosure and evidence-based analysis: true journalism sites such as wikileaks.org, consortiumnews.com, wsws.org, truthdig.com, globalresearch.org, counterpunch.org and informationclearinghouse.com are required reading for those trying to make sense of a world in which science and technology advance wondrously while political and economic life in the fearful "democracies" regress behind a media facade of narcissistic spectacle.
Propaganda BlitzIn Britain, just one website offers consistently independent media criticism. This is the remarkable Media Lens -- remarkable partly because its founders and editors as well as its only writers, David Edwards and David Cromwell, since 2001 have concentrated their gaze not on the usual suspects, the Tory press, but the paragons of reputable liberal journalism: the BBC, The Guardian , Channel 4 News.
Cromwell and Edwards (The Ghandi Foundation)
Their method is simple. Meticulous in their research, they are respectful and polite when they ask why a journalist why he or she produced such a one-sided report, or failed to disclose essential facts or promoted discredited myths.
The replies they receive are often defensive, at times abusive; some are hysterical, as if they have pushed back a screen on a protected species.
I would say Media Lens has shattered a silence about corporate journalism. Like Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent, they represent a Fifth Estate that deconstructs and demystifies the media's power.
What is especially interesting about them is that neither is a journalist. David Edwards is a former teacher, David Cromwell is an oceanographer. Yet, their understanding of the morality of journalism -- a term rarely used; let's call it true objectivity -- is a bracing quality of their online Media Lens dispatches.
I think their work is heroic and I would place a copy of their just published book, Propaganda Blitz , in every journalism school that services the corporate system, as they all do.
Take the chapter, Dismantling the National Health Service, in which Edwards and Cromwell describe the critical part played by journalists in the crisis facing Britain's pioneering health service.
The NHS crisis is the product of a political and media construct known as "austerity", with its deceitful, weasel language of "efficiency savings" (the BBC term for slashing public expenditure) and "hard choices" (the willful destruction of the premises of civilized life in modern Britain).
"Austerity" is an invention. Britain is a rich country with a debt owed by its crooked banks, not its people. The resources that would comfortably fund the National Health Service have been stolen in broad daylight by the few allowed to avoid and evade billions in taxes.
Using a vocabulary of corporate euphemisms, the publicly-funded Health Service is being deliberately run down by free market fanatics, to justify its selling-off. The Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn may appear to oppose this, but is it? The answer is very likely no. Little of any of this is alluded to in the media, let alone explained.
Edwards and Cromwell have dissected the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, whose innocuous title belies its dire consequences. Unknown to most of the population, the Act ends the legal obligation of British governments to provide universal free health care: the bedrock on which the NHS was set up following the Second World War. Private companies can now insinuate themselves into the NHS, piece by piece.
Where, asks Edwards and Cromwell, was the BBC while this momentous Bill was making its way through Parliament? With a statutory commitment to "providing a breadth of view" and to properly inform the public of "matters of public policy," the BBC never spelt out the threat posed to one of the nation's most cherished institutions. A BBC headline said: "Bill which gives power to GPs passes." This was pure state propaganda.
Media and Iraq InvasionBlair: Lawless (Office of Tony Blair)
There is a striking similarity with the BBC's coverage of Prime Minister Tony Blair's lawless invasion of Iraq in 2003, which left a million dead and many more dispossessed. A study by the University of Wales, Cardiff, found that the BBC reflected the government line "overwhelmingly" while relegating reports of civilian suffering. A Media Tenor study placed the BBC at the bottom of a league of western broadcasters in the time they gave to opponents of the invasion. The corporation's much-vaunted "principle" of impartiality was never a consideration.
One of the most telling chapters in Propaganda Blitz describes the smear campaigns mounted by journalists against dissenters, political mavericks and whistleblowers.
The Guardian' s campaign against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the most disturbing. Assange, whose epic WikiLeaks disclosures brought fame, journalism prizes and largesse to The Guardian , was abandoned when he was no longer useful. He was then subjected to a vituperative – and cowardly -- onslaught of a kind I have rarely known.
With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous." They also disclosed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy cables.
With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh."
The Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore wrote, "I bet Assange is stuffing himself full of flattened guinea pigs. He really is the most massive turd."
Moore, who describes herself as a feminist, later complained that, after attacking Assange, she had suffered "vile abuse." Edwards and Cromwell wrote to her: "That's a real shame, sorry to hear that. But how would you describe calling someone 'the most massive turd'? Vile abuse?"
Moore replied that no, she would not, adding, "I would advise you to stop being so bloody patronizing." Her former Guardian colleague James Ball wrote, "It's difficult to imagine what Ecuador's London embassy smells like more than five and a half years after Julian Assange moved in."
Such slow-witted viciousness appeared in a newspaper described by its editor, Katharine Viner, as "thoughtful and progressive." What is the root of this vindictiveness? Is it jealousy, a perverse recognition that Assange has achieved more journalistic firsts than his snipers can claim in a lifetime? Is it that he refuses to be "one of us" and shames those who have long sold out the independence of journalism?
Journalism students should study this to understand that the source of "fake news" is not only trollism, or the likes of Fox News, or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom The Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo.
"[It is] an age in which people yearn for new ideas and fresh alternatives," wrote Katharine Viner. Her political writer Jonathan Freedland dismissed the yearning of young people who supported the modest policies of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as "a form of narcissism."
"How did this man .," brayed the Guardian 's Zoe Williams, "get on the ballot in the first place?" A choir of the paper's precocious windbags joined in, thereafter queuing to fall on their blunt swords when Corbyn came close to winning the 2017 general election in spite of the media.
Complex stories are reported to a cult-like formula of bias, hearsay and omission: Brexit, Venezuela, Russia, Syria. On Syria, only the investigations of a group of independent journalists have countered this, revealing the network of Anglo-American backing of jihadists in Syria, including those related to ISIS.
Leni Riefenstahl (r.) (Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)
Supported by a "psyops" campaign funded by the British Foreign Office and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the aim is to hoodwink the Western public and speed the overthrow of the government in Damascus, regardless of the medieval alternative and the risk of war with Russia.
The Syria Campaign, set up by a New York PR agency called Purpose, funds a group known as the White Helmets, who claim falsely to be "Syria Civil Defense" and are seen uncritically on TV news and social media, apparently rescuing the victims of bombing, which they film and edit themselves, though viewers are unlikely to be told this. George Clooney is a fan.
The White Helmets are appendages to the jihadists with whom they share addresses. Their media-smart uniforms and equipment are supplied by their Western paymasters. That their exploits are not questioned by major news organizations is an indication of how deep the influence of state-backed PR now runs in the media. As Robert Fisk noted recently, no "mainstream" reporter reports Syria.
In what is known as a hatchet job, a Guardian reporter based in San Francisco, Olivia Solon, who has never visited Syria, was allowed to smear the substantiated investigative work of journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett on the White Helmets as "propagated online by a network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the Russian government."
This abuse was published without permitting a single correction, let alone a right-of-reply. The Guardian Comment page was blocked, as Edwards and Cromwell document. I saw the list of questions Solon sent to Beeley, which reads like a McCarthyite charge sheet -- "Have you ever been invited to North Korea?"
So much of the mainstream has descended to this level. Subjectivism is all; slogans and outrage are proof enough. What matters is the "perception."
When he was U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus declared what he called "a war of perception conducted continuously using the news media." What really mattered was not the facts but the way the story played in the United States. The undeclared enemy was, as always, an informed and critical public at home.
Nothing has changed. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's film-maker, whose propaganda mesmerized the German public.
She told me the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the "submissive void" of an uninformed public.
"Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked.
"Everyone," she said. "Propaganda always wins, if you allow it."
Propaganda Blitz by David Edwards and David Cromwell is published by Pluto Press.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 11:14 pm
The British Foreign Office almost immediately reacted to the RT scoop with its usual bluster: "Lies and obfuscation!"yalensis September 14, 2018 at 2:13 amInteresting accusation off HM government is that!
Since March 4 of this year, the British side has stated that:
- Yulia Skripal brought "Novichok" in her suitcase.
- The Skripals were poisoned with buckwheat.
- The Skripals were poisoned with bouquet of flowers at the cemetery. T
- he Skripals were poisoned with an UAV drone.
- The Skripals were poisoned through air conditioning in the car.
- The Skripals were poisoned with an aerosol.
- The Skripals were poisoned by Mikhail Savitskis (aka "Gordon") group, consisting of 6 killers.
- The killer/s poured "Novichok"onto a door handle.
- The Skripals were poisoned with "Novichok" in a form of a gel.
- The Skripals were poisoned with a perfume bottle (so it seems "Novichok" is still liquid).
- The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a public toilet.
- The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a hotel room.
- The Skripals were poisoned by 2 GRU* agents.
"Novichok" is a "5–8 times more lethal than VX nerve agent" and "the most deadly ever made", though it can't kill even 2 people.
*There has, in fact, been no such organization known as the GRU in Russia since 2010, when the official name of the unit was changed from ″GRU″ [ Главное разведывательное управление -- Glavnoye razvedyvatel'noye upravleniye ], namely "The Main intelligence Agency", to "The Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation", or ″GU″ [Главное управление Генерального штаба Вооружённых Сил Российской Федерации -- Glavnoye upravleniye General'nogo shtaba Vooruzhyonnykh Sil Rossiiskoi Federatsii ].
The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented in the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different, often contradictory, unproven scenarios.
Last week, the UK Ambassador to the UN, she who resembles a drag-queen well past his sell-by date, namely the inimitable Karen Pierce, attempted to take the piss out of Russia by stating at the UNSC that Russia had put forward 40 different accounts of what had happened, which ludicrous proposals simply proved how lacking in credibility the Russian government allegations are.
The reality was, however, that in presenting such accounts, Russia was taking the piss out of Her Majesty's Government and the sensationalist, Russophobic, warmongering British press and their more than 40 accounts of what happened in Salisbury last March.
The delectable Karen seemed unaware of this fact.
Recall, that Pierce is the woman, a high ranking British diplomat, no less, who believes that Russia (i.e. the Russian Federation that came into existence in 1991) was founded on many of Karl Marx's precepts.
Exactly! For Simonjan this unexpected interview was the scoop of the century.
The Russian press is going wild with this story.
One blogger wrote that some of the utterances of the 2 gopniki are rapidly becoming "winged phrases" compared only to snippets from Griboedov's "Woe from Wit".Best example: "We returned to Salisbury to complete this business."
Simonjan (suspiciously): "What business?"
Gopnik: "To see the cathedral
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Noirette , Sep 17, 2018 9:07:22 AM | link
Petrov - Boshirov. To me they were utterly convincing. Mostly because they were absolutely terrified and utterly naive about doing a TV interview and answering questions.
RT, the interviewer and setting - an office - and the number of cameras were their conditions, I have read, and I believe it. They wanted to appear in public, rather than hide (no doubt following some excellent advice, and Putin's public assurance, saying he hoped they would come forward..) but had little idea beyond that except that they wanted to avoid being Center in a media circus - storm. (They need a PR expert and top-class lawyer.)
Why their gayness / not or what business they run legally or not-so-much and lots of other topics are invoked and puzzled over is because ppl simply cannot believe what happened here. (Imho!)
(Some weird event, possibly fabricated, organised by X, or strange happenstance, or whatever) .. sent Sergei and Yulia 'queer -- ill', as well as DS Bailey, and later, Dawn and Charlie (All connected to some 'event' that remains cloudy.)
The Gvmt. *slowly* latched onto the meme 'the Russians did it' thru pol. opportunism (Syria etc.) and/or as a cover up for some ugly and dismaying stuff. At every step of the way, they tardily re-calibrated, 'fixed' the narrative to jell with that script. A good ex. is DS Bailey: he was at first affected as a first responder to the Bench Scene, but much later, that was denied, and he was poisoned because he stole comatose Sergei's keys and went to his home where he "most likely" touched a Novichoked doornob. (Note the doornob tale leaves the door open (sic) to some mundane passers-by doing nefarious deeds.)
The investigators behind the computers acted under orders and under the imposed assumption
"Some Russian undercover(s) flew in on or around March 1,2,3, and poisoned a door in Salisbury, find a match."
After examining endless planeloads of Russian travellers to the UK, and thousands of hours of CCTV, they turned up these two (and kept their jobs and kiddies safe! Yay! )
The only link between the pair and the Skripal 'event' is the stated fact that 'minuscule traces of Novichok' were found in the Hotel in London they stayed in. This is complete BS, see for ex. even the Daily Mail!
(see also Grieved and Debsisdead above)
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk
Dave , August 28, 2018 at 17:41
Xavi , August 28, 2018 at 18:40BBC is skanky state propaganda. The myth of BBC being some standard for news reporting died with the advent of the availability of international and independent news in Western countries. The main thing that BBC used to have which propped up the illusion of it being a respectable news source is that there was no competition or alternative to compare its narratives against. Since that time is over, so is BBC's masquerading as an impartial or accurate news source.
Ken Kenn , August 28, 2018 at 21:49Agree, Dave. That's what's informing the push to rubbish dissenting sites as fake news and eventually have them removed.
Ironic when the BBC has been ceaselessly pushing fake news for at least 15 years, with disastrous results. (Iraq; Libya; what caused the deficit and who should be forced to pay it down; Russia/Syria false flags; Corbyn A/S.)
Deb O'Nair , August 28, 2018 at 00:52Well I was convinced of fake BBC news during 9/11 and not for the reasons of building 7 coming down too early but the fact that the female journalist was facing a camera standing in front of a glass window and there was no reflection of her or the camera person from the glass. Not even a faint shadow.
That's when I knew the BBC were employing vampires and have been ever since.
Green Screen technology I discovered later. All the On the spot reporters are at it apparently. Or repeating Reuters or PA.
frankywiggles , August 28, 2018 at 09:48I find it impossible to watch BBC News, primarily because most of the editorial staff and senior correspondents seem to be working for MI5/6 and are more interested in disseminating Geo-political propaganda than upholding their journalistic responsibilities as defined in the BBC charter. People should not only boycott the BBC but refuse to pay the license fee on the grounds that it's a compulsory political subscription.
D_Majestic , August 28, 2018 at 14:35Careful, Craig
BBC world affairs editor 'fed up' with complaints directed at the corporation's news output
Brendan , August 28, 2018 at 10:34Of course BBC News is not biased. Most of the time it is not even factual.
ADHD , August 28, 2018 at 11:00Dear Mark,
In a BBC article on 4 July 2018, you wrote: "I have not felt ready until now to acknowledge explicitly that we had met, but do now that the book is nearing completion."Could you please explain that comment? I do not see why your acknowledgement of your meetings with Sergei Skripal should be delayed until your book is nearing completion.
If you felt that it was right to reveal those meetings in July, then why was it not right to do so in March, soon after the poisoning occurred? What difference would it have made if you had done so four months earlier?
I cannot think of any negative consequences of an earlier acknowledgement of the meetings. In fact, disclosures of any possible conflict of interest are generally considered to be desirable in journalism, regardless of whether the conflict of interest is real.
Kay , August 28, 2018 at 14:42The book is obviously part of a propaganda campaign. It seems hugely fortuitous that Mark Urban should have had "hours" of interviews with Skripal before the poisoning incident.
Isn't it much more likely that the Urban "interviews" would have happened after the event? But Urban can't say that because that would lead to demands from other journalists or news bodies to have access to Skripal.
And that can't happen because either Skripal would be asked about what happened on the day of the poisoning, or can't be guaranteed to stick to the script, or is no longer alive. And that leads to a suspicion that whatever Skripal is supposed to have said in his interviews with Urban has really just been made up by the British security services.
ADHD , August 28, 2018 at 15:59I'm open to alternative hypotheses but right now I think the most likely explanation for Urban's pre-poisoning contact with Sergei Skripal is that, at the time, it was assumed the Orbis dossier would be a key component of the successful takedown of Trump and Urban was putting together a mutually flattering account by interviewing the main players.
Tongue in cheek, it'd be worth asking Urban if his decision to cover the Skripal poisoning in his new book was made before or after the Skripals were actually poisoned.
Brendan , August 28, 2018 at 10:37The consensus seems to be that it was an anti-Russia book, but that doesn't conflict with what you say (there is overlap, your view is just more specific). But, I just find it hard to believe that Urban and the conspirators would waste their time "counting their chickens ". Not least because such a book would form a handy list of traitors (together with confessions) if Trump were to prevail and it fell into the right hands. This is "101 – How to Organise a Revolution" (secrecy / don't put anything in writing); surely British security services know that?
With regard to your tongue-in-cheek point. Urban could have interviewed Skripal anytime after Trump was gone, unless he believed Skripal might be unavailable (for some reason). The fact he interviewed Skripal before does indicate foresight. If Urban really did interview Skripal before the event then he would be wiser to pull the book and burn every copy in existence (as well as all his notes).
Regardless, it looks like the master of the universe are losing their ability to create reality.
Tom , August 28, 2018 at 10:38Last month, Mark Urban was promoting the reports that the Russian assassins had been identified from CCTV footage:
"There are now subjects of interest in the police Salisbury investigation. ( ) analytic and cyber techniques are now being exploited against the Salisbury suspects by people with a wealth of experience in complex investigations."
https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1020366761848385536That story originated with a report by PA, which Security Minister Ben Wallace called "ill informed and wild speculation". https://mobile.twitter.com/BWallaceMP/status/1019906962786484225
Or as Craig Murray put it, "Unnamed source close to unnamed British police officers tells unnamed Press Association journalist Britain knows the unnamed Russian agents ".
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1019854966327005184Even Urban's colleagues had to admit that "The BBC has not been able to independently confirm the story."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44883803Still, that didn't stop Mark Urban from reporting the story almost as fact.
Ian Fantom , August 28, 2018 at 10:41The BBC relies on it's interpretation of the Act because it is held for the purposes of 'journalism, art or literature.' but this relies on a usually unrelated precedent and the opinions of a number of Judges which contradict this view. I'm in the process of challenging this with ICO but don't expect anything will change until another supreme court ruling:
Made By Dom , August 28, 2018 at 11:04I've put in a Freedom of Information request regarding meetings with Skripal other than any that were for the purpose of BBC news journalism. (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mark_urbans_non_journalistic_mee )
craig Post author , August 28, 2018 at 11:18Can I play Devil's Advocate ?
I can see the value in asking writers, journalists and artists to pose exactly the same questions as Eccles' original letter but I'm not convinced about Craig's email.
A quick google shows me that a man named Mark Urban has written a book on the Skripals. Isn't it likely that Urban was keeping the interviews to himself in order to keep his book alive?
It wouldn't surprise me if Urban cares far more about his writing career than his job at the BBC. I'm sure most journalists would rather be authors. He's written a number of books on war and military intelligence. If his sources have nothing to do with the BBC then why should he answer to an on line mob?
SA , August 28, 2018 at 11:29" Isn't it likely that Urban was keeping the interviews to himself in order to keep his book alive?"
No, entirely unlikely. a chance to plug his forthcoming book and his Skripal contacts to a massive worldwide televion audience was eschewed.
The book is now about the Skripal attack. Presumably that was not the original subject he was researching, as it hadn't happened yet. The book will just be a rehash of the "noble defector – Putin revenge" line and none of the questions I asked about the genesis of his involvement will be answered in it.Chris Hemmings , August 28, 2018 at 14:41"Presumably that was not the original subject he was researching, as it hadn't happened yet." Or it was prescience ie that it was part of the planning for the incident?
giyane , August 28, 2018 at 11:46@BBC, Summer 2017, in an executive office:
"Hey Mark, why don't you go down to have a chat with this guy in Salisbury. I have a hunch that a story might be going to happen involving him, you know, as an ex-Soviet spy. Spend time with him, get to know him, be able to write in depth about him. Say it's for a book ."ZigZag Wanderer , August 28, 2018 at 12:26Urban is never one-sided in his BBC reports on the Middle East. I would rather have him as Foreign Secretary than a bumbling idiot like Hubris Johnson or a Tory racketeer Hunt, because however clunky the formula of BBC balance Urban is at least pretending to be governed by normal rules. After Thatcher went anyone with half a brain left the Conservative party, leaving dolts like Johnson and nasties like May and Cameron to pick up the pieces after Blair and Brown.
There's money to be made from Russian billionaires and tory shit will follow the money like flies on d**t**d.
Urban pretends to research a book exposing Russia and part of his research is to interview Skripal. His objective is to find dirt on Putin in order to swing the war in Syria in favour of USUKIS bombing Assad to smithereens, bayonets bums etc.
Tory shit Hubris Johnson finds this political research floating around the Foreign Office and decides to twist it into Russia murders Skripal by Novichok. Unfortunately Johnson is already known to be a liar and gravy-trainer Tory and nobody believes him at all. Mrs May , realising that Johnson, Fox, Rees-Mogg and Hunt are completely bonkers, does Chequers her own way.
Sharp Ears , August 28, 2018 at 11:16Interestingly Mark Urbans' book on Sergei Skripal was available to purchase on Amazon in July. I added it to my Amazon wishlist on 28/7/18. I've just looked at my wishlist and was rather surprised to find it is no longer available. It has been pulled.
From memory the books description said that Mark had interviewed Skripal 'extensively' during 2017 and also mentioned the 'new' spying war now happening between Britain and Russia.
A quick search revealed a new version of the book ( with an altered title ) will be available in early October .. details here. https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/mark-urban/the-skripal-files
Oh dear . panic stations !
Agent Green , August 28, 2018 at 12:27Salisbury poisoning: Skripals 'were under Russian surveillance'
Mark Urban Diplomatic and defence editor, Newsnight4 July 2018
'My meetings with Sergei Skripal
I met Sergei on a few occasions last summer and found him to be a private character who did not, even under the circumstances then prevailing, wish to draw attention to himself.
He agreed to see me as a writer of history books rather than as a news journalist, since I was researching one on the post-Cold War espionage battle between Russia and the West.
Information gained in these interviews was fed into my Newsnight coverage during the early days after the poisoning. I have not felt ready until now to acknowledge explicitly that we had met, but do now that the book is nearing completion.
As a man, Sergei is proud of his achievements, both before and after joining his country's intelligence service.
He has a deadpan wit and is remarkably stoical given the reverses he's suffered in his life; from his imprisonment following conviction in 2006 on charges of spying for Britain, to the loss of his wife Liudmila to cancer in 2012, and the untimely death of his son Alexander (or Sasha) last summer.'
...
KEVIN GLENNIE , August 28, 2018 at 11:18Laughable given that the whole world and virtually all heads of State were under US surveillance by the NSA – at least until Edward Snowden made all his revelations.
Niki Henry , August 28, 2018 at 11:21I have pasted and copied your Email regarding the above with a few slight alterations, it will be interesting to see the response I receive if any being just a concerned citizen of the U.
Paul Baker , August 28, 2018 at 11:28Is this not a matter for the Police? (Even if you're not too sure if they'd do anything about it) These would be files that are to do with an attempted murder case. And definitely not Journalism if the story is fabricated.
Sharp Ears , August 28, 2018 at 11:39It feels as if you are moving in the right direction in linking Sergei to Steele. I'm intrigued by the very early media references to Sergei wanting to return home to see his elderly mother for perhaps the last time. He had apparently written to Putin making his request but again according to newspapers hadn't received a reply.
I would suggest Julia was bringing the answer via her own secret services contacts, her boyfriend and his mother, apparently Senior in the Russian Intelligence Agency. Perhaps a sentimental man Sergei was aware his mother couldn't travel so the plea to Putin was his best bet.
Such a request must have disturbed MI6 if Sergei had anything at all to do with the Steele dossier because inevitably if he returned to Russia he'd be debriefed by his old colleagues. But how can you rely on a mercenary double agent? If he decided he might want to stay in Russia with his family that might well have been attractive, away from the lonely existence in a Salisbury cul de sac with only spies for company. But the Steele dossier has great potential to turn sour on the British.
It's author was a Senior spy and Head of the Russian Desk for some years. It is – perhaps you'd agree? – inconceivable that he didn't require permission to prepare it, especially as much of it was based on his experience as a spy in Russia. Yet it's equally inconceivable that the Agency bosses didn't know the identity of the commissioners or the use to which it would be put in the US election – to boost Clinton's bid. If she'd won everything would have been fine but as it is any discussion of foreign interference in that election would have to include MI6 leading the list (they probably didn't tell any politician?) To have Sergei supporting and highlighting that embarrassment would be problematic for US-UK relations. Of course Sergei may have had other nuggets to expose as well as Steele.
Soon after Julia's arrival the pair fell ill. They both survived but are now locked away, presumably for life and never able to explain their side of the story.
It was a bodged job with a poor cover story from the start and could only be carried because of D Notices and media complicity. Is his mother still alive? Would he still like to see her before she dies? Would Russia allow it? Would MI6 allow it? I think that's 3 yeses and a resounding No.
Charles Bostock , August 28, 2018 at 15:58Following the deaths of 55 Palestinians on the Gaza 'border' and the wounding of thousands, in this video, Urban asks the questions but the Israeli government spokesman, David Keyes, is allowed to spout all the usual propaganda against Hamas.
Gaza deaths: Who's to blame? – BBC Newsnight
Published on 15 May 2018
Subscribe 256K
Fresh protests against Israel are expected in the Palestinian territories, a day after Israeli troops killed 58 people in the Gaza Strip.
David Keyes is the spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mark Urban asked him whether it was appropriate for the US to open their embassy on the 70th anniversary of Israel's creation, a day that is hugely controversial for the Palestinian people.Newsnight is the BBC's flagship news and current affairs TV programme – with analysis, debate, exclusives, and robust interviews.
Website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1dec5XO53kMr Keyes' pronounced American accent was heard. The Occupation was not mentioned. A Palestinian voice was not heard.
This is another of his videos. On the same subject and on the opening of the Israeli Embassy in Jerusalem. This time, Jonathan Conricus spoke for the IDF.
Israel says. Same old. Same old. BBC. ZBC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WdqoPKKkD8Peter , August 28, 2018 at 11:39"Urban asks the questions but the Israeli government spokesman, David Keyes, is allowed to spout all the usual propaganda against Hamas."
Yes indeed : Urban asked the questions and allowed the interviewee to answer. Perhaps you would have preferred him to interrupt the interviewee continually 'a la Today programme, or to have shouted at him similarly to the way I understand some people shout at customers inside or outside supermarkets?
Jeremn , August 28, 2018 at 11:42This may or may not be relevant regarding Russia, chemical weapons and BBC/MSM bovine effluent:
"US Poised to Hit Syria Harder: The Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement on Aug. 25 stating that the Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham militants had brought eight containers of chlorine to Idlib in order to stage a false-flag attack with the help of UK intelligence agencies. A group of Tahrir al-Sham fighters trained to handle chemical warfare agents by the UK private military company Olive arrived in the suburbs of the city of Jisr ash-Shugur, Idlib, 20 km. from the Turkish border."
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/08/27/us-poised-to-hit-syria-harder.html
Paul Greenwood , August 28, 2018 at 12:00Can't help thinking that the answer to all this lies in Estonia. Sergei went to Estonia in June 2016, Pablo was in Estonia, the Estonians passed on sigint about Trump-Russian collusion in the summer of 2016. A Guardian article of 13 April 2017 said:
"Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians, sources said. The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland."
Perhaps not the Dossier, as such, but some material on collusion?
wonky , August 29, 2018 at 10:29John Paul Jones also fought for the Russians and was a Rear-Admiral. He was buried in Paris 1792 and disinterred 1905 and relocated to USA
Agent Green , August 28, 2018 at 12:11..then he met Jimmy Page in the 1960s and the rest is history..
Paul Carrom , August 28, 2018 at 12:12No doubt in my mind that the Skripal affair is a planned operation carried out by US/UK intelligence. What has actually taken place is still to be determined, but the propaganda operation itself is clear.
Doodlebug , August 28, 2018 at 14:53Definitely done by the UK.
mark golding , August 28, 2018 at 17:40What did the UK have against Dawn and Charlie? (Please don't say you subscribe to all that bottle-finding bullshit).
Doodlebug , August 28, 2018 at 18:06Catch my last post Doodlebug, sadly MI6 diabolical elements can be traced back to Ireland in the 70's early 80's assassinations theRealTerror (theRealElvis) understands.
Jo , August 29, 2018 at 11:59I know about Ireland, and I agree, it was NOT a nerve agent. That said, I don't believe anyone was 'attacked', including the Skripals.
N_ , August 28, 2018 at 12:24Being used as practice and to establish more "evidence"
N_ , August 28, 2018 at 12:20Often it's been open. There was the BBC monitoring station at Caversham Park. The BBC's Foreign Broadcast Information Service split the world into two parts with the CIA.
All foreign correspondents of major newspapers too work with MI6. Nobody who is close to them has any kind of doubt about this.
N_ , August 28, 2018 at 12:38Theresa May says a no deal Brexit "wouldn't be the end of the world".
- This is not a negotiating strategy. This is not a pantomime where one giant on the stage can wink to his supporters (using the British media) without his opponent (EU27) noticing.
- The subconscious doesn't work well with negation. Whatever you do, please DON'T imagine an elephant at this time.
- I would love to know what the preparations are at Trinity College, Cambridge, for food shortages. They own the port of Felixstowe, which handles more than 40% of Britain's containerised trade. They also own a 50% stake in a portfolio of Tesco stores. Soon food distribution will be what everyone is talking about. I am never going to stop making the point that the god of the Tory party is Thomas Malthus.
Nuno Strybes , August 28, 2018 at 12:43Oh dear.. Theresa May in Africa:
" As a Prime Minister who believes both in free markets and in nations and businesses acting in line with well-established rules and principles of conduct, I want to demonstrate to young Africans that their brightest future lies in a free and thriving private sector. "
I despise everyone who says that free markets are the solution for the problems of the third world. What they mean is mass starvation and an enormous population cull. There are international "foundations" that pay academics and politicians large amounts of money to spout this obscene line. One of them is called the John Templeton Foundation. They have had their fangs in to British universities for a long time.
They are keen on Prince Philip, the guy who said he wanted to come back as a virus so he could kill a large part of the population. Never trust anyone who has received a Templeton scholarship or prize or who has anything to do with these people or with the message that free markets and the private sector are the key to "development"
Ros Thorpe , August 28, 2018 at 12:30When the Tories talk about 'free markets', they are talking about markets free from democracy.
May's rhetoric is laughable .basically all her speeches read : 'the sky is green, the snow is black etc etc' -- totally detached from reality and a spent political force, as their recent membership numbers showed, with more revenues from legacies left in wills than from actual living members.
N_ , August 28, 2018 at 12:47I agree with the Skripal relatives that Sergei is dead. He hasn't been seen or heard of and would have called his mother. Mind boggling deception at all levels and I struggle to believe any of it.
Nuno Strybes , August 28, 2018 at 12:38Sergei Skripal could be in US custody, either in the US itself or in a US facility somewhere.
If he is dead, then the rehospitalisation of Charlie Rowley may be to assist with the narrative. "Once you've had a drop of Novvy Chockk, you may recover but you can fall down ill at any time, and here's an Expert with a serious voice to confirm it."
Trowbridge H. Ford , August 28, 2018 at 13:08I follow this blog closely, particularly in relation to the Skripal case, but this is my first comment. I just watched Sky News piece on 'super recognisers' and couldn't help but wonder why, in an age of powerful facial recognition technology, the police and security services seem to have drawn such a blank. The surveillance state in the UK is known to be one of the most advanced in the world but when it comes to this highly important geopolitical crisis our technological infrastructure seems to be redundant to the point where 'human eyes' are deemed to be more accurate than the most powerful supercomputers available. Psychologically, all humans have an inherent facial recognition ability from a very young age, but the idea that some police officers have this ability developed to such an extent that they supercede computer recognition is, i feel, laughable. To me this announcement through the ever subservient Sky News reeks of desperation on the part of the ;official story'. Are we about to be shown suspects who, although facial recognition technology fails to identify them, a 'super recogniser' can testify that it actually is person A or person B and we are all supposed to accept that? Seems either a damning indictment of the judicial process, or a damning indictment of the £££££'s of taxpayers money that is spent on places like GCHQ etc whose technology is now apparently no better than a highly perceptive human brain. Give me a break !
giyane , August 28, 2018 at 13:49Why no interest in how the Coopers died in Egypt? We will soon be told by HMG that the Russians somehow dd it too., thanks to Urban's research?
Trowbridge H. Ford , August 28, 2018 at 14:16People do die Trowbridge. I know you haven't, but you have the motivation of outliving your persecutors. With Muckin about with Isis gone and covert operations isn't social work Kissinger looking as though he's on daily blood transfusions, you have rejected Trump for some reason. But Trump has undone much of John McCain's worst mischief in one year. If McCain was an example of a politician, we don't need politicians.
Trowbridge H. Ford , August 28, 2018 at 15:03Give me an example, other than the Coopers. of a healthy couple one day that is found dying the next day like the Skripals.
And while i tried on another site to be generous about McCain. he got Navy Secretary John Lehman, Jr. to scare the Soviets for prevailing in the Vietnam War so much about what NATO was up to in the fallout from shooting Swedish PM Olof Palme that Moscow gave up the competition for fear that it would blow up the world, helping bring on the crappy one we have.
McCain was a continuing Cold Warrior who we don't need since we still have Trump who is just trying to do it another way.
Doodlebug , August 28, 2018 at 15:26Oh, I forget that couple in Amesbury. Looks like the Porton Down Plague is spread overseas.
Posting on this site in like playing bridge online – the cards are stacked against you.
"Give me an example, other than the Coopers. of a healthy couple one day that is found dying the next day like the Skripals."
Will a 17 year old and his step-father do?
They both survived, but one or other (quite possibly both) would have died without medical intervention.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
https://www.youtube.com/embed/zRNPVOAdQqkNice interview with Zakharova over the Skripal frame job. The good part is at around 14 minutes where the loud yapping chihuahua, the UK, is put in its place.
It is not a global player by any measure and has nothing useful to contribute aside from riding Uncle Scumbag's coat-tails to bomb civilians in Syria.
Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 2:08 am
Here's Zakharova in a less extravagant rig out: Repeatedly referred to as an "Old Hag" by a noisome visitor to the previous Stooge site.Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 8:30 am
That's an unfortunate outfit; I prefer the business-dominatrix look for her.Jen September 13, 2018 at 10:30 pmHere's Zakharova striding along in her red power dress and her power shoes:Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 11:17 pm
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-moscow-russia-17th-aug-2017-russian-foreign-ministry-spokesperson-154195435.htmlShe is not displaying her thighs almost up to her crotch, though, as is Nauert often wont to do!Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 11:42 pmAnd I'm okay with that.Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 11:58 pmGet thee gone to a monastery, preferably a Russian Orthodox one, to purge thyself of thy wicked thoughts and deeds!
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Warren September 12, 2018 at 12:41 pm
Fern September 12, 2018 at 3:44 pm
Moscow to London: Your move. This is an interesting development.Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 12:19 pmThe obvious thing for the British side to do would be to request Moscow to detain the two men so they could be interviewed as persons of interest. If this doesn't happen, it smacks of problems holding the official narrative together and I really can't see how the MSM could spin it away. Plus the surviving alleged victims or their families could have a case against the police for failing to investigate properly.
They're already spinning it away by saying publicly that the responses they are getting from Russia are 'lies and obfuscation'.Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 9:06 amIt will not make the slightest bit of difference in Britain; the British government will quickly announce, following any presentation of evidence by Russia, that it is all cleverly faked up, and remind people that these are professional intelligence agents, that's what they do, of course it looks convincing. All the more proof that they are what Britain says they are.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile September 12, 2018 at 1:02 pm
Salisbury novichok attack: Russian spies smuggled chemical weapons through airport baggage checks, UK security minister admitsJen September 12, 2018 at 8:18 pmTwo alleged Russian spies who launched the Salisbury attack smuggled novichok into the UK through Gatwick Airport, the security minister has confirmed.
I see! So now the disciplined and highly trained GRU assassins were spies as well.
Proper jack-of-all-trades!
Ben Wallace, who is currently Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime, " told the House of Commons there was 'clearly some form of attempt to create a legend to make sure that they circumvented our checks'.
'No doubt at the other end of that aeroplane journey [in Russia] there was some, I should think, the baggage checks weren't probably as good as they might be,' he added " -- because the Russians are all blithering incompetents stands ter reason, dunnit!
" Mr Wallace said requests for Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury had been met with 'obfuscation and lies', saying their response merely 'reinforces their guilt'. "
Of course it does! Why don't they just confess to what everyone knows they have done?
Were there no baggage checks by British customs officials at Gatwick International then?Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 12:05 pm'Clearly' is an English term which is subject to national interpretations. In Canada – mostly English-speaking – it traditionally means, "supported by verifiable and compelling evidence", although I hasten to add that Canada cheerfully booted out 'Russian spies' to support its ally, Britain.But in England, 'clearly' might mean 'as required to serve in the cause of political necessity'. In this instance, if the passports/visas/whatever travel documents of the men concerned do not read "GRU Assassin Traveling on Business", then clearly there was an attempt to circumvent British checks.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 5:11 am
RT editor-in-chief's exclusive interview with Skripal case suspects Petrov & Boshirov (TRANSCRIPT)James lake September 13, 2018 at 5:39 am
Published time: 13 Sep, 2018 11:32
Edited time: 13 Sep, 2018 12:29What a scoop! They don't look like the passport/ visa pictures which look like they were taken in bad light giving them a sinister air.Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 6:16 amScotland Yard should come over to interview them – they did say they were still investigating.
And the mockery from the Russophobes immediately kicks off in the British press! Travel all the way from Russia to visit Salisbury Cathedral and Stonehenge? What nonesense! Who are they trying to kid? That's because such a trip is barely imaginable for uncultured morons.Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 6:29 amWhen I last had the great misfortune to be in England with my family, and, to make matters worse, in London, my elder children begged and begged that we take a trip to Stonehenge. You see, they were fascinated by all that they had learnt about the place in their Russian schools.
We went on an excursion there, calling first at Windsor, then Salisbury, Stonehenge, and, finally, Bath for afternoon tea before heading off back to London.
Witness the moronity of some of my fellow countrymen in this comment published in today's Independent:
Well you can say a lot about our Russian friends: semi-educated, semi-civilised, pathological liars, undemocratic, authoritarian, crypto-fascist, mocked and despised the world over, but one thing we must concede is that they have a wonderful sense of humour.
So this delightful, oh-so intelligent looking couple flew all the way to Salisbury to have a look at the Cathedral clock, but the nasty inclement British weather (unlike tropical Moscow, of course) forced them to return with undue haste from whence they came.
May I suggest better acting classes and a credible script in future?
Doubtless the Indie's resident Putinite Mary Dejevsky, Comrade Corbyn and the brainless Prigozhin trolls infesting this site will try and sell it – because they are paid to, but anyone with an IQ higher than a daisy, ie. the rest of the sentient world, will shake their heads in disbelief at the knuckle-headed absurdity of this story.
Well, as regards the weather, moron, – for Russians, English snow is "inclement"', as it is wet shite. They were complaining of being wet to the knees. At the same time, in Russia it was minus 15C and there was plenty of deep, dry snow, which really would make Little Englanders like you whine.
Oh, and the person who owns that rag to which you wrote the above shite is owned by one of those "semi-educated, semi-civilised, pathological liars, undemocratic, authoritarian, crypto-fascist" Russians whom you so despise.
Russians "semi-educated"?Cortes September 13, 2018 at 7:51 amIn the years that I worked in England, in an English coal mine, I worked with quite a few fellow countrymen who were barely literate. I particularily remember one who often boasted that he had never read a book since he left school.
Fact :
Russia: The country with the highest literacy rate in Russia with almost 53% of the population has tertiary education. It is estimated that 95% of adults in Russia have higher secondary education and the country spends some 4.9% of GDP on education. 2.Jan 16, 2014
According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read.Jul 7, 2017
Adult Litercy UK :
Around 15 per cent, or 5.1 million adults in England, can be described as 'functionally illiterate.' They would not pass an English GCSE and have literacy levels at or below those expected of an 11-year-old. They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems.Many adults are reluctant to admit to their literacy difficulties and ask for help. One of the most important aspects of supporting adults with low literacy levels is to increase their self-esteem and persuade them of the benefits of improving their reading and writing.
(Awaits gnashing of teeth and rending of garments)Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 7:01 amAnd the British Foreign Office has replied as follows:James lake September 13, 2018 at 8:26 am"The government is clear these men are officers of the Russian military intelligence service – the GRU – who used a devastatingly toxic, illegal chemical weapon on the streets of our country."
"We have repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury in March. Today – just as we have seen throughout – they have responded with obfuscation and lies."
No obfuscation and lies from the FO, though!
Anything but a confession of guilt is "obfuscation and lies", it seems.
"We have repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury in March
I tell you what happened: nothing that the Russian state had anything to do with!
I suggest you ask your Yukie nazi pals for an account of what happened there, and your pals in Tel-Aviv as well.
From the MP for Salisbury:
What's the next move going to be in this saga.Fern September 13, 2018 at 4:33 pmThe UK say they used fake names
The two guys say that this is not true – they used there true passports
They gave a reason for being in Salisbury.
can the uk police show CCTV of those places ?
Where are the Skripals
Russia, cleverly, has thrown down the gauntlet. If the FCO claims that the story of Petrov and Boshirov is simply 'obfuscation and lies', then why not ask Russia to help make these guys available for interview and send a couple of detectives plus interpreter on the next flight to Moscow?yalensis September 14, 2018 at 2:31 amNo matter how the FCO and British government huffs, puffs and tries to blow houses down, ultimately they will be unable to explain why they haven't sought to question these guys.
Agreed, Fern. This was a very clever move on the chess board. Odd as these 2 characters are, the latest gambit serves to take this whole matter out of the Harry Potter world of geo-political magick, and put down to the mundane world of a detective story and criminal procedures. It pushes the politicians aside to make room for the gumshoes. From this point onward, the story is a police procedural.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
yalensis September 13, 2018 at 11:42 am
Krutikov has an interesting take on these guys. I think I will probably do this story tomorrow, in my blog, as a "breaking news".yalensis September 13, 2018 at 11:46 amIn a nutshell: Krutikov's theory is that these 2 "gopniki" earn their daily bread by illegal (or semi-legal) trade in European vitamins and supplement. This is what brings them to Europe and what brought them to Salisbury, most likely (i.e., the purchase of supplements, for resale in Russia).
While in Salisbury they decided to have a look at the sights; that part rings true; might as well see some sights.
The semi-legal nature of their "business" accounts for their nervousness; while their status in the Russian criminal underworld accounts for their horror at Simonyan's assuming them to be gay. An allegation which they rejected more vehemently than the accusations of being poisoners!
Krutikov also points attention to another instance of Vladimir Putin's subtle humor. Recall that when Putin announced the existence of these guys to the world, a couple of days ago, he used a strange phrase: "There is nothing particularly criminal there."
As usual, Putin is one step ahead of everybody in this ludicrous chess game.P.S. "никакого особого криминала" was the phrase used by Putin. At the time nobody paid much attention and it was translated as "There is nothing criminal there," but the actual phrase is "There is nothing particularly criminal there."yalensis September 13, 2018 at 1:37 pmOkay, I have to make a factual correction, Krutikov wass wrong about Putin's quote, and one of his commenters who questioned it, turned out to be correct. (Which is sort of sad for Krutikov, because he built his blogpost around the humor of Putin's supposedly implication that the duo are petty thieves.)yalensis September 13, 2018 at 12:10 pmSo, I found the actual vid of Putin making this utterance, it can be seen on this link:
https://iz.ru/788502/video/delo-skripalei-deviat-mostov-i-dziudo-vtoroi-den-vladimira-putina-na-vef
at around 1:48 minutes in. What Putin actually says is:ничего там особенного и криминального нет which translates as:
"There is nothing extraordinary there, nor criminal."Sort of different slant, no?
Update: The currently reigning theory in the Russian blogosphere is that Petrov and Boshirov earn their living buying and selling anabolic steroids on the grey market. Simonjan herself noted that Petrov has the build of a body-builder.James lake September 13, 2018 at 1:30 pmThe theory that they are a "gay pair" is also highly plausible. When Simonjan asked them about their relationship, they spazzed out and refused to answer. Blog commenters point out that this would be the moment when a man would indignantly mention that he had a wife and kids, or a girlfriend; but nothing like that ensued.
Other commenters have noted that Salisbury is well-known in the gay subculture for having a large number of rather excellent gay bars. Something that might have also drawn this couple there, in addition to seeing the cathedral spire!
In general, Russian press and blogosphere are having a field day with this story.
This is rather nasty – accused by the British of being assassins – then subjected to all this negative intrusion into their private life.yalensis September 14, 2018 at 2:27 amThe RT media behave like the gutter tabloids in the UK.
They don't deserve this nasty speculation.
Agree with James on that one point, namely that the Russian press is becoming too tabloid-y and going after the sensationalism.Fern September 13, 2018 at 4:22 pm
I feel sorry for this duo in that, if they are indeed gay and have now been outed due to what they call a "horrendous coincidence", then their lives in Russia will be miserable from this point onward.Russian society is simply not accepting of two grown men living together in a relationship.
To add insult to injury, the gutter-commenters on the Russian blogs continue to call them "pedophiles". Even though (duh!) they are both grown men.
Not sure if they live in Moscow or not. If in Moscow, they might still be able to survive, as the city is so Western now. But if they live out there in the sticks -- forget it.
Meanwhile, I just thought of something else. If these guys were sophisticated enough to play the Westie system, then they could adopt a tone of utter outrage, that the British government is harassing them for being gay. The Brits would have to cave on that one and issue a humble apology.
I've been thinking along similar lines – that their apparent shiftiness and caginess about the nature of their work suggests they could be involved in something that's semi-legal or which walks a fine line between the legal and the not.Mark Chapman September 13, 2018 at 11:36 pmWe've seen lots of CCTV footage of Petrov and Boshirov in Salisbury but nothing has been said of their movements in London; what they did there is probably the reason why they flew to the UK. Either that or the GRU is deficient in training its would-be assassins on the reliability (non-existent) of British rail services in bad weather.
Once again, Britain is stiff with CCTV. We know from previous discussions that there is CCTV coverage of the Skripals' street and even their house. Where is the CCTV video of the two GRU assassins on Skripal's street, or near his house? The British say they have this evidence and are happily building timelines around it, but where is the proof? If they have it, why don't they show it? It would shut Russian defenses right down. All we've seen is evidence of the two being in Salisbury. Apparently being Russian In Salisbury is now like Driving While Black. Both automatically presuppose you are a criminal.kirill September 13, 2018 at 5:06 pmIf they are gay, then the UK is going to have really bad optics with its setup. Gay GRU agents? According the UK MSM Russian gays are all being arrested and thrown in jail.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
James lake September 13, 2018 at 1:44 pm
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-strange-russian-alibi/Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 10:18 pmExcellent review of the interview by Craig Murray, Well worth reading
I agree with his assessment that RT did a very poor interview.
" Even more strange is the idea that it is wildly improbable for Russian visitors to wish to visit Salisbury cathedral and Stonehenge. Salisbury Cathedral is one of the most breathtaking achievements of Norman architecture, one of the great cathedrals of Europe. It attracts a great many foreign visitors. Stonehenge is world famous and a world heritage site. I went on holiday this year and visited Wurzburg to see the Bishop's Palace, and then the winery cooperative at Sommerach. Because somebody does not choose to spend their leisure time on a beach in Benidorm does not make them a killer. Lots of people go to Salisbury Cathedral. "Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 10:23 pmI had exactly the same thoughts! Holidays for most British moronic Tweeters means Benidorm and boooze in "British Pubs" that arte emblazoned with "Fish & Chips" signs.
I mentioned above that before setting off for London in June, 2016, my two eldest insisted that we include Stonehenge in our itinerary.
We were only in London for 3 days, though, before we set off for England, heading north to the English lakeland national park.
And saying that the RT interview was "poor" has now become a meme.Moscow Exile September 13, 2018 at 11:14 pmThe interview was a scoop and not given the usual razzamatazz shite presention so beloved by the Western news media, such as FOX TV.
The British Foreign Office almost immediately reacted to the RT scoop with its usual bluster: "Lies and obfuscation!"Interesting accusation off HM government is that!
Since March 4 of this year, the British side has stated that:
Yulia Skripal brought "Novichok" in her suitcase.
The Skripals were poisoned with buckwheat.
The Skripals were poisoned with bouquet of flowers at the cemetery.
The Skripals were poisoned with an UAV drone.
The Skripals were poisoned through air conditioning in the car.
The Skripals were poisoned with an aerosol.
The Skripals were poisoned by Mikhail Savitskis (aka "Gordon") group, consisting of 6 killers.
The killer/s poured "Novichok"onto a door handle.
The Skripals were poisoned with "Novichok" in a form of a gel.
The Skripals were poisoned with a perfume bottle (so it seems "Novichok" is still liquid).
The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a public toilet.
The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a hotel room.
The Skripals were poisoned by 2 GRU* agents.
"Novichok" is a "5–8 times more lethal than VX nerve agent" and "the most deadly ever made", though it can't kill even 2 people.
*There has, in fact, been no such organization known as the GRU in Russia since 2010, when the official name of the unit was changed from ″GRU″ [ Главное разведывательное управление -- Glavnoye razvedyvatel'noye upravleniye ], namely "The Main intelligence Agency", to "The Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation", or ″GU″ [Главное управление Генерального штаба Вооружённых Сил Российской Федерации -- Glavnoye upravleniye General'nogo shtaba Vooruzhyonnykh Sil Rossiiskoi Federatsii ].
The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented in the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different, often contradictory, unproven scenarios.
Last week, the UK Ambassador to the UN, she who resembles a drag-queen well past his sell-by date, namely the inimitable Karen Pierce, attempted to take the piss out of Russia by stating at the UNSC that Russia had put forward 40 different accounts of what had happened, which ludicrous proposals simply proved how lacking in credibility the Russian government allegations are.
The reality was, however, that in presenting such accounts, Russia was taking the piss out of Her Majesty's Government and the sensationalist, Russophobic, warmongering British press and their more than 40 accounts of what happened in Salisbury last March.
The delectable Karen seemed unaware of this fact.
Recall, that Pierce is the woman, a high ranking British diplomat, no less, who believes that Russia (i.e. the Russian Federation that came into existence in 1991) was founded on many of Karl Marx's precepts.
|
|
|
Sep 06, 2018 | larouchepac.com
Prime Minister Teresa May took to the floor of the Parliament today to report that the Crown Prosecution Service and Police had issued warrants for two Russian GRU officials who, they claim, had carried out the Skripal attacks last March. "We were right," she said with a stiff upper lip, "to say in March that the Russian State was responsible." Mugshots were released of two people whose names, she declared, were aliases (how they know they are GRU officials if they don't know their names was not explained). "This chemical weapon attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian behavior that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the world," she intoned.At the same time, dire warnings have been issued to Syria and Russia that there will be a major military response if Syria uses chemical weapons in Idlib. This is despite the fact that Russia has presented the proof to the OPCW and to the UN that the British intelligence-linked Olive security outfit and the British-sponsored White Helmet terrorists have prepared a false flag chlorine attack in Idlib, to be blamed on the Syrian government, to trigger such a military atrocity by the US and the UK.
Also at the same time, in the US, Washington Post fraudster Bob Woodward released a book claiming that numerous Trump cabinet officials made wildly slanderous statements about Trump -- all third hand from anonymous sources, of course. Chief of Staff John Kelly called the claims "total BS," while Secretary of State Jim Mattis called it typical Washington DC fiction, adding that "the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump, or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is a product of someone's rich imagination."
Worse, the New York Times, apparently for the first time, printed an "anonymous" op-ed by someone claiming to be a "senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us," under the title: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration -- I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." Whether this person is or is not who they claim to be, it is clearly part of the British coup attempt, as proven in the op-ed itself. After calling Trump amoral, unhinged, and more, and claiming there is discussion within the Administration of using the 25th Amendment to remove him for mental incompetence, it then states: "Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations [read: the United Kingdom - ed.]. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."
And, while news about the British drive for war with Russia and their attempted coup against the government of the United States fills the airwaves and the press, not a single word -- repeat, not a single word -- has been reported in the US or British media about the truly historic conference which took place on Monday and Tuesday in Beijing, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAP). Helga Zepp-LaRouche declared this week that this event will be recognized in history as the end of the era of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Every African nation except one was represented at the conference in Beijing (the "one" was Swaziland, the last holdout on the African continent which still maintains diplomatic relations with Taiwan rather than Beijing).
All but six were represented their head of state. They reviewed the transformation taking place across Africa due to the Belt and Road Initiative since the last FOCAP meeting in 2015, and laid out plans for the even more rapid development over the next three years, and on to 2063 -- the target year for full modernization over 50 years, adopted by the African Union in 2013. One after another the leaders of the African nations described the actual liberation taking place, finally seeing in China the example that real development and the escape from poverty is possible. The program launched at the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, where the formerly colonized nations met for the first time without their colonial masters, has finally been realized.
But no one reading the western press would even know that this transformative event had taken place.
Rather, there is only the new McCarthyism, trying to demonize Russia and China, to revive the "enemy image" which should have been eliminated with the fall of the Soviet Union and the recognition of the People's Republic of China.
Trump threatens this new McCarthyism, insisting that America should be friends with Russia and China. No longer will the U.S. accept Lord Palmerston's imperial dictate for the Empire, that "nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests." The "special relationship" is to be no more.
This is the cause of Theresa May's hysterical rant today in the Parliament. Better war, led by the "dumb giant" America, than to see the Empire destroyed in a world united through a shared vision of universal development.
Britain's drive for war must be exposed and stopped, along with their Russiagate coup attempt in the US. A victory for the common aims of mankind is within our grasp, but the danger is great, and the time is short.
|
|
|
Sep 09, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
pogohere , Sep 8, 2018 3:00:08 AM | link...
Russia's asymmetric response is very painful.
https://cont.ws/@alex-haldey/1054552
machine translated from the original Russian; excerpted:
The fact is that Russia pursues its policy without regard to their provocations. She defeated the Wahhabis trained by the West in the Caucasus, snatched Crimea from under the nose. The US scenario in Ukraine broke. Restores the EAEC. In Syria, Russia completely threw the Anglo-Saxon West off the pedestal, which he held there all the post-war 50 years. That is, with its bombing of head choppers, Russia has broken the rigid "Full Spectrum Dominance" situation created and maintained by the Americans since the dissolution of the USSR. This is a disaster, which the Anglo-Saxon world has nothing to answer nuclear to Russia.
While Britain crumbled in compliments of the OPCW experts it had bought for the act, Russia dealt the most powerful bomb attack in Idlib, clearing the way for the Syrian army to destroy the last enclave of American suckers. And thus it struck a blow to the British political elite. After all, all the dances around the Skripals and the subsequent sanctions are designed to prevent what Russia is doing now in Idlib. Not prevented. And this is a demonstration of the weakness of the British ruling class, capable only of biting stealthily behind its heels.
But worst of all, the actions in Idlib demonstrate the US weakness. Trump is completely beaten down - by his neocon rivals, not Russia. Russia has revealed the preparations for the provocation of the Khimatki in Idlib, which the US rep in the United Nations has announced to the whole world. With all the details, such number of barrels of chorine delivered to headchoppers and their color, as well the path of those barrels to Idlib and places of their secret storage. Now with those revelation it make much less sense to launch this operation.
But the operation will be. The match will take place in any weather. The United States has already outlined the places on which they will strike rocket-bomb strikes. The assault will be more decisive than the previous time. Preparation is as if the US is confident - the chlorine attack will take place. Then, when they decide in the US. Not in Damascus, but in Washington. That is, in general, all masks are dropped and the States openly prepare for aggression with provocation in a sovereign country where they are open in the status of an occupier. And even if there is no chemotherapy at all, the American blow will take place. Too much Russian was battered by bombs of American protégés. They are too close to defeat, for which the reason for finding Americans in Syria will disappear. How can this be allowed? The impact of prestige is necessary and it will be, even if the Sun falls to the ground and the Mississippi will flow backwards. Only prestige is not visible.
The USA are increasingly falling down replacing the strategy with tactics. The attack on Syria is necessary for Americans not because they will decide the outcome of the campaign. But because the US needs to introduce its ground forces to change the course of the war, with all possible negative consequences such as possible the death of the military personnel and the open clash with Iran, Syria and Russia. And even with Turkey. With China silently standing behind them the global consequences of this action are unpredictable. One possible consequence can well be the collapse of NATO. This "Second Vietnam" might crush not only the American president, but the US itself. The other scenario is that the USA just want to "score a goal of prestige" and leave the lost match. They will strike at Syria, where again Russian intelligence will reveal in advance the alleged targets of the strike, withdraw the critical assets from there, and then we have a firework of exploding Tomahawks intercepted by defenders.
Russia in Idlib is now in a very difficult position due to Turkey, not so much the USA. The repelling of the USA attach is one thing, but the main danger that it can't achieve too much on the ground de to Turkish interests in the area. Trump attack would be mainly for domestic consumption, the show created on the4 eve of the congressional elections. And even repelling the attack can be counterproductive -- Russia risks drowning Trump, instead of somehow supporting his formidable image and helping to win. Simply because Trump is beneficial to Russia - it's too cool he breaks everything on what the American power of the past decades was based. Helping his impeachment is not in the national interests of Russia. That means that Trump must come out of those stupid and counterproductive Tomahawks salvos without losing his face.
The US remains the world hegemon and want to remain as such for a long time. That's why it beats Russia with sanctions. But Russia does not need to oppose the USA. It just need to help to build a countervailing power. And Berlin, supported by Moscow's cheap gas, can be countervailing force for London in Europe.
The threat of losing global hegemony is very painful for both the British and Americans. It is so painful that they organized the collapse of the ruble and this false flag operation in Salisbury. And then OPSW were intimidated by British special services.
Russia should responds asymmetrically -- by continuing to build up its economy and prosperity of its citizens and ignore such insane and ineffective actions by London and Washington.
Russia already had shown Erdogan how easily caravans with oil are bombed, Russia does not want to allow its exports from Syria. And the US will have to withdraw from Syria there sooner or later. Still, Russia should give Trump the opportunity to finish his term without outright humiliation in Syria. The United States might not have the second such president, as Russia will not have a second Gorbachev.
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 | www.theblogmire.com
Miheila says: August 19, 2018 at 9:39 am
"Polonium was chosen as the poison due to its production in Russia, it would implicate Russia". Exactly. Just as 'Novichok' was allegedly used in Salisbury, due to it allegedly being developed in Russia (Mirzyanov) – even though it wasn't actually used against the Skripals at all. Maybe this element of the hoax was inspired by Beluga's use of polonium in the Litvinenko affair.Anonymous says: August 20, 2018 at 8:06 amMiheila, the polonium story always seems crazy to me. It relies on Litvinenko being too mean not to buy his own cup of tea. Hardly a foolproof assassination method.Anonymous-1 says: August 19, 2018 at 5:20 amPAGE 4 OF 4
This follows a similar pattern to Alexander Litvinenko. Walter Litvinenko, his father, believes Alex received a second dose of agent whilst in hospital. It was a Worlds Apart interview but is now the subject of an Ofcom complaint. Walter said his suspicions were raised by the secrecy of the British government and the fact that they wouldn't let him see any reports. So he made his own investigations, and from initially thinking it was Russia, he now believes it was the British government. He returned to Russia in fear of his life.OPERATION BELUGA
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/03/15/operation-beluga-the-plot-to-demonise-putin/
"Renowned French security expert Paul Barril has let loose a bombshell: the existence of Operation Beluga, a covert Western intelligence scheme intended to undermine Russia and its leaders."
The https://www.opednews.com is wrong link, should be: http://mirastnews.com/2016/03/operation-beluga-a-us-uk-plot-to-discredit-putin-and-destabilize-the-russian-federation.html
Renowned French security expert Paul Barril, in an interview, alleges that Berezovsky was working closely with MI6 and the CIA to discredit Russia and Putin, and that large sums from these agencies were passing through Berezovsky's hands to be paid to individuals to cooperate in these efforts. Barril says Litvinenko was one of Berezovsky's bag men, who passed funds on to others.
"Russia has nothing to do with the murder of Litvinenko. The case was fabricated from the beginning. Polonium was chosen as the poison due to its production in Russia, it would implicate Russia. The objective of the whole operation was to discredit president Putin and the FSB. It was done because Russia is blocking US interests around the world, especially in Syria. It was an attempt to weaken Putin's hold on power, to destabilize Russia."
Barril mentions the outspoken Putin foe, financier William Browder, as being in close cooperation with Berezovsky in the discreditation efforts. He also says he is sure Berezovsky was murdered by his secret service handlers after they realized he was behaving erratically and had to be silenced so that he wouldn't give them away.
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Norwegian , Sep 13, 2018 7:15:14 AM | link
@40 sejomoje:
"I'm with you Norwegian. Same tunnel, different times."
Yes, and now we have proof that this interpretation is correct. See their interview now on RT: https://www.rt.com/news/438350-petrov-boshirov-interview-simonyan/
I added bold in the quote below:
---
The RT editor-in-chief also touched upon the most puzzling picture of the two, the photo from the Gatwick airport."Here is the picture that puzzled the whole world, Gatwick airport, you are leaving through a gate literally in the same times, almost the same second. How did it happen?" she asked.
" We always go together through the same corridor and the same custom service officer or a policeman. One goes, the other waits. We went through the corridor together, we always [do it] together .
How did it happen? It's better to ask them [UK police]," Boshirov replied.
---So they went through the same corridor just like I demonstrated in https://postimg.cc/image/pw7t667ch/ . This means the UK police manipulated the images, i.e. fabricated the evidence. Very interesting to have this confirmed directly....
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
m , Sep 12, 2018 3:04:05 PM | link
To add to Norwegian@3, George Galloway made a couple of very interesting points, especially about the time stamp on the photo. He said the Skripals left the house in the morning, never to return. The "Russian agents" could not have arrived in Salisbury until noon or thereabouts...hmmmm...and they would have had to paint the doorknob with this deadliest of poisons in full view of everyone. Perhaps the Russians have learned to time travel or warp time. I wouldn't put it past them http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50231.htm
|
|
|
Sep 08, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org
Prime Minister Theresa May made a statement to accuse Russia of being behind the Skripal poisoning case . She went to address the parliament right after prosecutors accused two Russian men, allegedly military intelligence officers, to perpetrate the assassination attempt. These are the first criminal charges in the case that has spoiled the West-Russian relations so much. The British government has issued EU arrest warrants and Interpol red notices to have the two individuals arrested by police in any country should they leave Russia's territory.
According to the PM, Great Britain and its friends must step up collective efforts against Russia. Its military intelligence service (the GRU) is to be specifically targeted employing "the full range of tools from across our national security apparatus." Before making the speech that sounded hostile toward Moscow, the PM had talked the matter over with US President Trump and other friendly world leaders. Ms May is expected to raise the issue at the UN General Assembly later this month. No doubt, London will ask the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to investigate the case. The UK will probably impose sanctions of its own and call on others to join. As usual, media "leaks" will pour more fuel on the fire. Anti-Russia forces in the West will get the second wind.
Ben Wallace, Minister of State for Security at the Home Office, attributed direct blame on Russian President Vladimir, something Ms. May avoided to do. He said the Russian leader bears responsibility for the nerve agent attack.
The photos of two men that have visited the UK are not evidence to support the PM' claims. "We have heard or seen two names, these names mean nothing to me personally," Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters in Moscow. "I don't understand why this was done and what sort of signal the British side is sending." But one thing is curtain – the British government wants as much noise and publicity as possible. It raises hue and cry in an evident attempt to further deteriorate the West-Russia relations and it does it on purpose. Why now? Because this is the right time to pursue the hidden agenda.
US Ambassador to Britain Woody Johnson said on Twitter: "The US and UK stand firmly together in holding Russia accountable for its act of aggression on UK soil." He was quick to react. Evidently, Mr Johnson wasted no time on waiting for instructions. It had all been known, discussed and decided before.
By spearheading the anti-Russia campaign in the West, London increases its political weight before Brexit takes place. With its unity in peril, the West needs something to keep it together and the Russia's bogey comes in handy.
The second round of US sanctions imposed to punish Russia for the alleged, but never proven, use of nerve agents, is much tougher than the first one in force since August. It is to take effect in November – the same month US midterm elections take place.
The "Skripal sanctions" are not introduced by Congress but the State Department. It's up to the president to impose them or not. If President Trump's party keeps the majority in both houses, the pressure to prove he is tough on Russia will ease. The president may soften the sanctions or not impose them at all. The reinvigoration of "Skripal poisoning" campaign will make it much harder to do. Donald Trump as well as EU leaders will be under constant pressure to do more to counter Russia.
True, the EU is not interested in whipping up tensions in its relationship with Russia amid the sanctions war and other things to deteriorate its relationship with the United States. But on the other hand, Eurosceptics, who are friendly to Moscow, are predicted to win big in the European parliament election in May. They may get every third vote and have enough seats to stymie the functioning of the "unreformed" EU as we know it today. It will put into jeopardy the very survival of the bloc. Many of Eurosceptics want the relations with Russia normalized and the sanctions lifted. Be it Skripal or something else, an anti-Russia campaign is needed to attack them. They'll be painted as "useful idiots" or "traitors" promoting Russia's evil plans to destroy the West. Here again, the imaginary "Russia threat" serves the purpose perfectly.
The events in Syria are distorted to denigrate Russia but that's happening far away. Spreading around the stories about Moscow using chemical weapons in Europe may have the desired effect to keep voters away from throwing their support behind those who can change the European political landscape.
There is actually nothing new in what the British PM stated. It's not so important what exactly she said. It's timing that matters. The moment is right for anti-Russia hysteria to be given a fresh impetus. Will this tactics work? The November elections in the US and the European elections in May will show. The closer is the vote, the more concocted stories about the nefarious Russia's activities will come into the spotlight.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.rt.com
Home World News We know who people named as suspects in Skripal case are, they are civilians – Putin Published time: 12 Sep, 2018 06:56 Edited time: 12 Sep, 2018 12:57 Get short URL
'Alexander Petrov' and 'Ruslan Boshirov' are seen in an image handed out by the Metropolitan Police in London, Britain / Reuters Moscow is aware of who the people named as suspects in the Skripal case are, President Vladimir Putin said, adding that these people are civilians. Saying that there is "nothing criminal" about the two, Putin also hopes that the people in question will eventually come forward and talk to the media.
"I want to address them [the suspects]... [I hope] they contact the media. I hope they appear and tell everything about themselves," he said, addressing the audience during the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in the Russian city of Vladivostok.
Read moreBritish prosecutors name the 2 Russians suspected of poisoning the Skripals
Earlier in September, UK prosecutors named two Russians they suspect of poisoning Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury this March. According to London, their names are Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Russia denies any involvement and accuses Britain of spinning the case to stir anti-Russian sentiment.
Beyond identifying them as Russian nationals, the prosecutors gave no indication as to who the men are.
After London again blamed Russia, implying that officials at the highest levels of power could be responsible for the poisoning, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov rebuffed the allegations.
"Neither Russia's top leadership nor those with lower ranks, and [Russian] officials, have had anything to do with the events in Salisbury," he said at that time.
The Kremlin spokesman added that Putin didn't personally speak to the two individuals identified by the British authorities as suspects in the case. Russian law enforcement has not made any moves to prosecute them, Peskov said.
According to the investigators, the suspects who arrived in Britain from Moscow left traces of the poison used in the attack in the hotel room they stayed in. They were also caught on CCTV cameras in Salisbury twice, including on the day of the attack, and traveled back directly to the Russian capital.
READ MORE: Skripal saga aimed to stir anti-Russia sentiment of Cold War - Ken Livingstone to RT
This trail of evidence from the supposedly highly-trained perpetrators casts doubt over Moscow's involvement, according to a number of security experts. "It seems very strange that these people have absolutely left what seems to be a very reckless and clear trail of evidence, which almost seems to be designed, or at least would almost inevitably lead to, the conclusions that the police and the authorities have come to today, in other words that Russia were to blame," Charles Shoebridge, a security expert and former British military officer, told RT. Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer, said the inquiry into the case has effectively turned into a trial by media, based on "bits of evidence that may look pretty compelling but will never be tested in a real court of law."
London also insists that a counterfeit Nina Ricci perfume box was used as container and delivery device for the chemical used in the poisoning. It was later found by Charlie Rowley in the town of Amesbury, not far from Salisbury. They also claim that the noxious agent was in a bottle that had been altered to make it "perfect cover for smuggling the weapon into the country and a perfect delivery method for the attack against the Skripal's front door."
Reacting to the prosecutors' statement, Russian envoy to the UN Vasily Nebenzya joked that the nerve agent attack has so far had only one benefactor – Nina Ricci.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
tac , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 4:51 pm GMT
@annamariaannamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 6:09 pm GMT... ... ...
Today's latest offering is that the 'Russians' in the 'mugshots' released last week are 'already dead' having been 'executed by Putin' to stop them talking, forever. Which neatly avoids the British state asking Russia for help in identifying them. London's failure to do so was already arousing suspicion amongst a cynical public. There is now no point, the would-be assassins are now six-feet below the permafrost of Anglo-Russian relations.
The media here have completely ignored the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury, preferring instead the cheap barroom brawling of the British prime minister on the floor of the House of Commons cheered on by the vulgar popular press and their more refined elder sisters in the upmarket papers and on the BBC.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/438157-skripal-syria-allegations-russia/
@tac
FSB arrests ISIS member 'who planned murder of a Donbass leader on behalf of Ukraine'The Russian security service, the FSB, says it has arrested an Islamic State operative who was planning to murder one of the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) on behalf of the Ukrainian authorities.
The suspected terrorist was identified as Mejid Magomedov, who was born in 1988 in Russia's southern Dagestan republic. He was arrested on Sunday in Russia's Smolensk region in the west of the country.
https://www.rt.com/news/438028-fsb-isis-member-ukraine/"the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury "
Explosive Skripal allegations may blow up in Syria - George GallowayToday's latest offering is that the 'Russians' in the 'mugshots' released last week are 'already dead' having been 'executed by Putin' to stop them talking, forever. Which neatly avoids the British state asking Russia for help in identifying them. London's failure to do so was already arousing suspicion amongst a cynical public. There is now no point, the would-be assassins are now six-feet below the permafrost of Anglo-Russian relations.
The media here have completely ignored the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury, preferring instead the cheap barroom brawling of the British prime minister on the floor of the House of Commons cheered on by the vulgar popular press and their more refined elder sisters in the upmarket papers and on the BBC.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/438157-skripal-syria-allegations-russia/
Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny, nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent.
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile September 9, 2018 at 9:13 pm
Two Russian GRU hit men who apparently spent a considerable amount of their small amount of time whilst on a mission of death in Merry England mugging in front of CCTV cameras.Mark Chapman September 10, 2018 at 2:42 amAnd they only killed one person, and not their intended target at that: a junky, drug pushing bum's alcoholic womanfriend, who unfortunatly was accidently contaminated with the deadliest nerve poison known to man.
As a Scotland counter-terrorist chief plod said, these were trained professionals in the killing trade, and as Prime Minister May said, they belong to a tightly disciplined organization whose orders come directly from the top, meaning the Dark Lord no less.
Simply sickening and despicable!
Good job Russians are a bunch of dickheads, otherwise the whole population of Salisbury might have been poisoned – or the South of England, even.
Who knows what these vile Russians will do next?.
It's amazing that so much crisp, instantly-recognizable footage exists of the hit men, almost as if they were laying out an easily-reconstructable route for observers; at least, as contrasted with the blurry and ambiguous photo evidence of the Skripals, which seems to rely on happy snaps by friends as much as government resources. Until they get Yulia on camera to make her post-Novichok debut, of course – then, it's theatre-quality. In fact, the quality of British evidence seems to go up markedly as soon as the preceding exhibits are the object of public derision.Moscow Exile September 10, 2018 at 4:06 amThis laying of a trail directly back to the Kremlin is a regular feature of Russian incompetents!Warren September 9, 2018 at 12:54 pmHarding, in his account of the Litvinenko poisoning , wrote:
The poison was polonium-210, a rare radioactive isotope, tiny, invisible, undetectable. Ingested, it was fatal. The polonium had originated at a nuclear reactor in the Urals and a production line in the Russian town of Sarov. A secret FSB laboratory, the agency's "research institute", then converted it into a dinkily portable weapon.
Lugovoi and Kovtun, however, were rubbish assassins. The quality of Moscow's hired killers had slipped since the glory days of the KGB.
It's because they're idiots, see!
Although Russians are a direct to Western civilization and against whom we must be ever on guard, they are also all congenital dickheads, doomed to failure -- always.
All of them!
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
photofour , Sep 9, 2018 9:02:55 PM | link
< b,>metadata for the uk police photos show the airport pix used micro$oft photo editing app back on may 3rd. check the direct download buttons at the police site pages and ignore the html embed.
fotoforensics site just pulled them directly from those download links (copied from fotoforensics)
cctv1
Creator Tool Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Create Date 2018:05:03 18:43:50.00
Date/Time Original 2018:05:03 18:43:50.00
Image Size 695x363
Megapixels 0.252cctv2
Creator Tool Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Create Date 2018:05:03 13:46:30.00
Date/Time Original 2018:05:03 13:46:30.00
Image Size 692x366
Megapixels 0.253full report at fotoforensics on cctv1
full report at fotoforensics on cctv2i still don't buy the simultaneous timestamp explanation.
|
|
|
Sep 09, 2018 | www.rt.com
The nerve agent attack in Salisbury has so far had only one benefactor – Nina Ricci, which got free advertising due to a disguise apparently used by the perpetrators to hide the poison, the Russian envoy to the UN joked. The British investigators said a counterfeit Nina Ricci bottle was used as a container and delivery device for the chemical used in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in March. The same container was found by a struggling couple from Amesbury, who got poisoned themselves. Read more
UK accusation of Russians in Skripal case 'cocktail of lies' timed with Idlib false flag op – MoscowSpeaking at a UN Security Council session on Thursday, Russian envoy Vasily Nebenzya, denounced Britain for accusing Russia of the crimes, saying that the allegations are not base on any hard evidence.
"There were plenty of baseless allegations against Moscow and concrete sanctions based on them. Apparently, the only winner in this continued theatre of absurdity is Nina Ricci, the product of which got some free ad as a container for the toxic chemical," he said.
Britain says two Russian military intelligence agents tried to kill Skripal with a weapons-grade chemical weapon, claiming the identification was made by the British intelligence. Russia denies any involvement and accuses Britain of spinning the case to stir anti-Russian sentiment.
|
|
|
Sep 09, 2018 | www.rt.com
The UK has stirred up the Skripal saga for the sake of waging a broader campaign to kowtow to the anti-Russian rhetoric inside the British government, ex-London mayor Ken Livingstone has told RT. The latest smoking gun of allegations against Russia fired by London, with the British Prime Minister Theresa May claiming that Russian "military intelligence agents" attempted to murder former spy Sergei Skripal, leaves too many questions and doubts, Livingstone believes.
"What struck me over last couple of years seem to me ratcheting up of anti-Russian sentiment almost trying to recreate a Cold War," the former mayor told RT. He stressed that London's turning its back to Moscow's constant readiness to cooperate and failure to present to the public a shred of evidence – if there is any – might be a sign of "a hidden political agenda here as part of broader anti-Russian campaign" inside the British government.
Livingstone is not the only one who doubts the narrative. Independent political analyst Dan Glazebrook, who also shared his views with RT, pointed how clumsy the alleged agents should have been – from taking a train to reach their target to allowing themselves to be caught on CCTV.
|
|
|
Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com
Iris , says: September 5, 2018 at 10:12 pm GMT
Talking of 5th column, lest forget the solid one in the UK.Iris , says: September 5, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMTDeep State's mouthpiece "The Telegraph" had dedicated several articles to the identification of alleged Skripal Novichok poisoners, named as two Russian nationals who briefly entered the UK under the aliases Petrov and Beshorov.
http://www.crawleynews24.co.uk/shock-as-police-reveal-novichok-suspects-passed-through-gatwick/
Sycophantic PM Theresa May has gone as far as stating that the suspects are GRU agents, and pointing the finger at President Putin.
Jeremy Corbyn is being hounded because he is very reserved about the Novichok story.
The UK government is fully embedded with Zionist Israel. This cock-and-bull story, which details have been nonetheless very well presented, is a very alarming hint that something is in preparation against Russia, either directly in Syrian, or less directly in the Ukraine.
@Iris Talking of 5th column, lest forget the solid one in the UK.Iris , says: September 6, 2018 at 11:00 pm GMTDeep State's mouthpiece "The Telegraph" had dedicated several articles to the identification of alleged Skripal Novichok poisoners, named as two Russian nationals who briefly entered the UK under the aliases Petrov and Beshorov.
http://www.crawleynews24.co.uk/shock-as-police-reveal-novichok-suspects-passed-through-gatwick/
Sycophantic PM Theresa May has gone as far as stating that the suspects are GRU agents, and pointing the finger at President Putin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VqSJCa7RA
Jeremy Corbyn is being hounded because he is very reserved about the Novichok story.
The UK government is fully embedded with Zionist Israel. This cock-and-bull story, which details have been nonetheless very well presented, is a very alarming hint that something is in preparation against Russia, either directly in Syrian, or less directly in the Ukraine. Novichock poisoning false flag (Continued).
A possible explanation of the Novichok story being spun at the moment in the UK is that a Western/Israeli military attack on Syria is in preparation to stop the Arab Syrian Army from entering Idlib, the last terrorist stronghold.
Such Western intervention requires the pretext of a chemical attack, that will be staged in the field by the proxy White Helmets, while UK public opinion will be subdued with terrorising stories of weapons of mass destruction.
This same pretext was used for the April 2018 Western bombing of Syria. This bombing was aimed at hitting key Syrian targets, but its scale was finally limited by the intervention of General Mattis, who dreaded reciprocated actions against the 3000 US servicemen present in Syria.
"The White Helmets (and an alleged chemical attack) are the last hope for regime change in Syria"
Very interesting interview of former UK Ambassador Ford by SyrianGirl:One day after Theresa May's Novichok show at the British Parliament , France's Chief of Military Staff Francois Lecointre has declared that France is ready to strike Syria should she dare a "chemical attack" on Idlib.Both poodles each side of the Channel are barking in synchronism; Israel is pulling on the leashes and something bad is in preparation.
Here is Francois Lecointre in his brown uniform. Unknown to us stupid plebeians, France must be surrounded by steppes and deserts for brown to have been chosen as camouflage colour.
|
|
|
Sep 05, 2018 | www.rt.com
John Wight has written for a variety of newspapers and websites, including the Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal. The recent development in the Skripals poisoning case is guaranteed to plunge already dire relations between Moscow and London through the floor. At a set-piece press conference in London, Neil Basu, head of the London Met's counter-terrorism police force, positively identified two Russian suspects in the case. He produced CCTV images of the two individuals along with their names and details of their movements from Russia to the UK and back again. He also alleged that according to a " working hypothesis " the suspects smuggled the Novichok substance used in the attempt on the lives of former Russia intelligence office and British spy Sergei Skripal, and daughter Yulia, into the country with them from Russia. Read more
Names of 'Russian suspects' in Skripal case published by UK don't mean anything to us – Moscow
The rocket fuel this very significant and very serious development adds to the already seething anti-Russia sentiment and feeling that dominates the minds of the British political and media establishment is self-evident. At a time of multiple crises involving Moscow and London – crises yet to be resolved around the conflict in Syria, tensions over Ukraine, the presence of NATO troops and military assets close to Russia's western border, sanctions, etc. – it is extraordinarily worrying that relations between both countries have now plunged to their lowest point since the end of the Cold War.
That the Russian state is capable of carrying out an attack of this nature is not in doubt. All states are capable of carrying out such attacks, and all states, including Britain, have carried them out at various points in their history. But the timing of this particular attack is key, given that it took place just a few months prior to the start of the World Cup in Russia, and at a time when the Russian government was extending itself in attempting to repair relations with the West with a view to achieving normalization.
Then, too, the motive remains impossible to discern. Sergei Skripal had been living openly under his own name in Salisbury, England, where the attack took place, for some time, so clearly did not believe that he was in any danger.
The international damage to Russia's reputation as a consequence of being behind such an attack is likewise not in any doubt.
These points are not, of course, made as infallible proof that the Russian government or intelligence was not responsible. But they are pertinent in of themselves, given the context.
Read moreBritish PM says two suspects in Skripals poisoning case are Russian military intelligence officers
Another point worth raising is the sheer crudity of two supposed Russian agents taking a direct flight to and from the UK to carry out the attack and travelling together both ways. Such amateurish planning is the stuff of your average Hollywood spy spoof movie rather anything you would associate with a serious intelligence agency.
Significantly, during his press conference and presentation, Mr Basu did not go as far as alleging Russian state involvement. Such restraint, however, has long been a foreign land where the prime minister is concerned.
In her statement to the Commons on this latest development, Theresa May wasted no time in unleashing a rhetorical artillery barrage against the Kremlin, buoyed by a feral chorus of MPs who almost to a man and woman had already embraced Russia as the officially designated enemy of all that is holy and good in the world.
Either the prime minister knows something that the head of the Met's counter-terrorism police force does not, or we have entered an age when blaming Russia for everything is an unofficial requirement of the duties of high political office in Westminster.
To be fair to the prime minister though, she's been blaming the Kremlin for this crime almost since the very day it took place, gleefully riding the wave of anti-Russia hysteria that had already been whipped up by a mainstream media whose denizens one James Connolly was once minded to describe as " The inkslingers of the jingo press ."
Read more'No cause for further investigation' into 14 deaths of people linked to Russia – May
With her leadership mired in crisis over Brexit, and with her errant former foreign secretary and putative prime minister, Boris Johnson, currently breathing down her neck with a looming challenge to her leadership, for the prime minister the timing of this development could not, politically, be more convenient. For at such moments she is able to give free rein to the appearance of the kind of strong and robust leadership qualities that are, in truth, grievously absent.
Going forward, this will only add more grist to the mill of a neocon firmament whose very existence is predicated on maintaining Russia in the role of existential threat to Western civilization. A frog's chorus of calls and demands for ever more stringent trade, financial and economic sanctions against Moscow will reach a crescendo, buttressed by an uptick in the deployment of troops and military assets to eastern Europe in a futile effort to intimidate and cow the Kremlin into accepting its prescribed status as a vassal of Washington and its allies.
Worryingly, in 2018 we have reached the stage that George Orwell described in his classic novel, 1984: " The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that no past or future agreement with him was possible. "
Western ideologues should take a moment to consider that Orwell wrote his classic work as a warning not a blueprint.
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2018 | www.unz.com
Over the past decade or so, a disturbing number of Russian nationals living in Britain have met untimely deaths. The victims – at least 14 – have been high-profile individuals, such as oligarch businessman Boris Berezovsky or former Kremlin security agent Alexander Litvinenko. All were living in Britain as exiles, and all were viewed as opponents of President Vladimir Putin's government.
Invariably, British politicians and news media refer to the deaths of Russian émigrés as "proof" of Russian state "malign activity". Putin in particular is accused of ordering "the hits" as some kind of vendetta against critics and traitors.
The claims of Russian state skulduggery have been reported over and over without question in the British media as well as US media. It has become an article-of-faith espoused by British and American politicians alike. "Putin is a killer," they say with seeming certainty. There is simply no question about it in their assertions.
The claims have also been given a quasi-legal veracity, with a British government-appointed inquiry in the case of Alexander Litvinenko making a conclusion that his death in 2006 was "highly likely" the result of a Kremlin plot to assassinate. Putin was personally implicated in the death of Litvinenko by the official British inquiry. The victim was said to have been poisoned with radioactive polonium. Deathbed images of a bald-headed Litvinenko conjure up a haunting image of alleged Kremlin evil-doing.
Once the notion of Russian evil-doing is inculcated the public mind, then subsequent events can be easily invoked as "more proof" of what has already been "established". Namely, so it goes, that the Russian state is carrying out assassinations on British territory.
Read also: The Real Danger Behind The U.K. ElectionsThus, we see this "corroborating" effect with the alleged poisoning of a former Russian double-agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in Salisbury back in March this year.
Read more at https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/07/20/british-assassination-campaign-targeting-russian-exiles.html
|
|
|
Sep 07, 2018 | off-guardian.org
Originally from: Skripal Case Luke Harding's latest work of fiction OffGuardian
uke Harding likes writing books about things that he wasn't really involved in and doesn't really understand. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, that covers pretty much everything. His book about Snowden, for example, was beautifully taken down by Julian Assange – a person who was actually there.He's priming the traumatised public for another of his works, this time about Sergei Skripal. This one will probably be out by Christmas, unless he can find someone else's work to plagiarise , in which case he might get it done sooner.
It will have a snide and not especially clever title, perhaps a sort of pun – something like "A Poison by Any Other Name: How Russian assassins contaminated the heart of rural England" . It will relate, in jarring sub-sub-le Carre prose, a story of Russian malfeasance and evil beyond imagining, whilst depicting the whole cast as bumbling caricatures, always held up for ridicule by the author and his smug readership.
There's an extract in The Guardian today. It's not listed as one, but trust me, it will be in the book. It's title, as predicted above, is sort of a pun (and will probably be a chapter heading):
Planes, trains and fake names: the trail left by Skripal suspects
You see? Like that film? I don't really get it either but until someone else comes up with something clever he can copy, Luke is left to his own rather meagre devices.
It starts off surprisingly strong, waiting three whole sentences before lurching violently into totally unsupported conjecture:
The two men were dressed inconspicuously in jeans, fleece jackets and trainers as they boarded the flight from Moscow to Gatwick. Their names, according to their Russian passports, were Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Both were around 40 years old. Neither looked suspicious.
This is, as far as we know so far, true.
The plane trundled down the icy runway. In Moscow the temperatures had fallen below -10C, not unusual for early March. In Britain it had been snowing.
and so is this. In fact, in googling "Moscow weather March 2018" Harding has displayed an uncharacteristically thorough approach to research that was rarely (if ever) evidenced in his previous works.
They had also packed a bottle of what appeared to be the Nina Ricci perfume Premier Jour. The box it came in was prettily decorated with flowers, it listed ingredients including alcohol and it bore the words "Made in France".
This is where truth ends and guesses take over: there is no evidence, at all, that these two men had anything to do with the "perfume bottle" allegedly found by Charlie Rowley on June 27th and allegedly containing a powerful nerve agent. There is (as far as we know) no fingerprint or DNA evidence on the bottle, nobody saw them with the bottle, and there's no released CCTV footage of them holding or carrying the bottle. Saying "it's in their backpack" is meaningless without any evidence to back it up.
According to the Metropolitan police, the bottle in fact contained novichok, a lethal nerve agent developed in the late Soviet Union. The bottle had been specially made to be leakproof and had a customised applicator.
Note he doesn't feel the need to examine, question or even verify the words of the Metropolitan Police. This is a recurring theme in Harding's works – there are people who tell the truth (US) and people who lie (RUSSIANS). Evidence is a complication you can live without.
Moscow's notorious poisons factory run by the KGB made similar devices throughout the cold war.
Did they? Because he doesn't show any evidence this is true. One thing you can be sure of, if there had ever been even a whisper about a "modified perfume bottle" in any Soviet archive or from any "whistleblower currently living in the United States", it would be on the front page in big black letters.
Petrov and Boshirov were aliases, detectives believe. Both men are suspected to be career officers with the GRU, Russia's powerful and highly secretive military intelligence service.
Note use of the word "believe", it makes regular appearances alongside it's buddies: "suspect" and "probably".
And yes, they "believe" they are aliases because IF they were assassins then obviously they used aliases. There's no evidence taken from their (currently totally theoretical) visa applications that point to forgery, nobody at the time questioned their passports. As of today, we have been given no reason to think they were aliases, except reasoning backwards from assumed guilt which isn't how deduction works.
In fact, there's more than enough reason to assume they aren't aliases – Firstly, they passed the visa check, secondly their passports were never questioned, thirdly they've used them before (see below), and finally just WHY would a Russian spy-come-assassin use a fake Russian name and a fake Russian passport? That's ridiculous.
The officers' assignment was covert. They were coming to Britain not as tourists but as assassins.
[citation needed]
Their target was Sergei Skripal, a former GRU officer who spied for British intelligence, got caught and was freed in a spy exchange in 2010. They were heading for his home in provincial Salisbury.
Luke doesn't feel the need to dig down into the nitty gritty here – motive is a trifle, to be added in the footnotes or made up on the spur of the moment when asked at a book signing. I'm a bit more fussy than that – I feel the need to ask "Why did they release him in 2010 and then try to kill him in 2018?" If they had wanted to kill him, why not just do it when he was in prison in Russia between 2006 and 2010? If they wanted to kill him why do it just weeks before the World Cup? What could they possibly have to gain?
Luke doesn't know, and neither do I.
Their Aeroflot flight SU2588 touched down at 3pm on Friday 2 March. They were recorded on CCTV going through passport control, Boshirov with dark hair and a goatee beard, Petrov unshaven and wearing a blue gingham shirt. Both were carrying satchels slung casually over the shoulder.
This is all true, and completely unnecessary. It's what we in the industry call "filler" or "padding". Totally meaningless and useless words that do nothing but take up space. Without it, a lot of Luke's books would only be about 700 words long.
According to police, the pair had visited the UK before.
Way to bury the lead there, Luke.
This is actually quite important isn't it? I mean, when did they visit the UK before? Did they visit Salisbury then too? Did they have any contact with Sergei Skripal? Were they travelling under the same names? Were these visits linked with other intelligence work? Were they just holidays? What kind of assassins would use the SAME FAKE IDS ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS?
These are all very important questions, but Luke doesn't ask them. Because Luke is a modern journalist, and they don't interrogate the claims of the state, just report them. To Guardian reporters a question mark is just that funny squiggle next to the shift key.
From Gatwick they caught the train to London Victoria station and then the tube to east London, where they checked in to the City Stay hotel in Bow. It was a low-profile choice of accommodation. The red-brick Victorian building is next to a branch of Barclays bank, a busy train line and a wall daubed with graffiti. Across the road is a car pound and a Texaco garage.
This just more filler. Totally meaningless packaging material. The prose equivalent of All-Bran.
On hostile territory, Boshirov and Petrov operated in the manner of classic intelligence operatives.
In this instance "the manner of classic intelligence operatives" means, flying direct to London from Moscow, using Russian names and Russian passports (which you've used before), checking into a hotel with a CCTV camera on the front door, going straight to the hometown of an ex-double agent, leaving a Russian poison his front door even though he's already gone out, dumping your unused poison in a charity bin on the high street, going back to your hotel, smearing poison around that too even though you already dumped it, and then flying directly back to Moscow without even waiting to see if the plan worked and the target is dead.
This, in Luke's head, is ace intelligence work.
On the day of the hit, according to detectives, the pair made a similar journey, taking the 8.05am train from Waterloo to Salisbury and arriving at 11.48am.
Yes, they arrived at 11.48, making it absolutely pointless to put poison on the Skripal's door, as they had already gone out.
The perfume bottle was probably concealed in a light grey backpack carried by Petrov.
It was "probably concealed" in that backpack because, as I said above, there's no evidence either of those men ever knew the perfume bottle existed. You never see it in their possession.
Oh, and the backpack would have to contain TWO bottles of perfume – because the police aren't sure the bottle Rowley found 3 months later was the same bottle, and Rowley reported it was unopened and wrapped in cellophane. Perhaps Luke should have read the details of the case instead of trolling IMDB looking for movie titles with "plane" in them or googling "insouciant" to see if he was using it right.
From Salisbury station the two men set off on foot. It was a short walk of about a mile to Skripal's semi-detached home in Christie Miller Road.
which doesn't matter, because the Skripals weren't there. They left at 9.15 and there is no evidence they ever returned.
At Skripal's house the Russians smeared or sprayed novichok on to the front door handle, police say.
which doesn't matter, because the Skripals weren't there. They left at 9.15 and there is no evidence they ever returned.
It doesn't matter if Borishov and Petrov re-tiled the bathroom with novichok grouting or hid novichok in the battery compartment of Sergei's TV remote or replaced all his lightbulbs with novichok bombs that explode when you use the clapper .according to everything we've been told so far Sergei and Julia were literally never in that house again.
Luke seems to write a lot about this case, considering he is barely acquainted with the most basic facts of it.
The moment went unobserved
True. There is not a single piece of footage, photograph or eyewitness placing these men within a hundred feet of the Skripals, or their house. The "moment went unobserved" is an incredibly dishonest way of phrasing this, "the moment is entirely theoretical" is rather fairer. Or, if you want to be honest "it's possible none of this happened".
At some point on their walk back they must have tossed away the bottle, which at this point was too dangerous to try to smuggle back through customs.
It's all falling into place perfectly isn't it?
At some point the two men, who we never see holding or carrying the bottle, must have thrown it away because three months later someone else found it.
They took it through customs once but couldn't a second time, because reasons.
Also one of them was smiling a sort of "I just poisoned somebody" smile:
At 1.05pm the men were recorded in Fisherton Street on their way back to the station. They appeared more relaxed, Petrov grinning even.
Those evil bastards.
By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a park bench in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the poisoners were gone.
No Luke: By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a park bench in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the ALLEGED poisoners were gone.
Alleged is an important word for example, there is a marked difference between being an ALLEGED plagiarist, and being a plagiarist .
The visitors were captured on CCTV one more time, at Heathrow airport. It was 7.28pm and both men were going through security, Petrov first, wheeling a small black case. In his right hand was a shiny red object, his Russian passport. Police believe the passport was genuine, his name not. In other words, that it was a sophisticated espionage operation carried out by a state or state entities.
You see? Nobody thought the passport was fake, which means it was a really good fake . So the Russian state must have been in on it. This is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If the passport did look fake, that would be evidence that the men were spies and therefore the Russian state was in on it.
Harding has created a narrative where there is literally no development that could ever challenge his conclusions.
Seemingly, the GRU plan – executed two weeks before Russia's presidential election – had worked perfectly.
This is an example of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy – two things happen at the same time, therefore they happen for the same reason. It's a maneuver we at OffG refer to as "the Harding", where you state two separate assertions or facts one after the other in such a way as to imply a relationship, without ever making a solid statement. I'll give you an example:
Luke Harding was born in 1968, mere weeks before the brutal assassination of Robert Kennedy.
Harding is suggesting some sort of connection between the election and the poisoning. He can't STATE it, because then he has to explain his reasoning – and there isn't any. Putin, and Russia as a whole, had nothing to gain from poisoning an ex-spy they had released nearly a decade earlier, especially on the eve of a Presidential election and mere weeks before the World Cup. There's no argument to be made, so he doesn't attempt to make one, he just makes a snide and baseless insinuation.
In his defense, Luke might genuinely believe it, cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a favorite amongst paranoid personalities , of which Luke is definitely a prime example .
Vladimir Putin, the man whom a public inquiry found in 2016 had "probably" signed off on the operation to kill Litvinenko. The UK security services say a "body of evidence" points to the GRU.
"Probably" is also a big word. For example, there's a marked difference between "probably being a plagiarist" and "being a plagiarist" .
It seems clear that Moscow continues to view Britain as a playground for undercover operations and is relatively insouciant about the consequences, diplomatic and political. The Skripal attack may have misfired. But the message, mingling contempt and arrogance, is there for all to see: we can smite our enemies whenever and wherever we want, and there is nothing you can do about it.
This is the second time Luke has used the word "insouciant" in two days, which means that word of the day calendar was a probably sound investment, but he forgot to flip it over this morning.
Other than that, this final paragraph is nothing but paranoia.
The Russians were TRYING to make it obvious, to send a message. But were also lazy and arrogant. And yet also left no solid evidence because they are experts at espionage. They had no motive except being mean, and couldn't even be bothered to make sure they did it right. They want us all to know they did it, but will never admit it.
The actual truth of the situation can be summed up in a few bullet points. Currently:
There is no evidence these men were using forged documents. There is no evidence these men were travelling under aliases or assumed names. There is no evidence these men ever had any contact with Sergei Skripal's house. There is no evidence these men ever had any contact with Sergei Skripal or his daughter. There is no evidence these men were Russian intelligence assets or had any military training. There is no evidence these men ever possessed or had any contact with the perfume bottle found by Charlie Rowley on June 27th. They have visited the UK before, not on intelligence business (as far as we know). Their movements don't align with the timeline of Skripal's illness.The entire narrative is created around half a dozen screen caps of two (allegedly) Russian men, not behaving in any way illegally or even suspiciously. All the rest is fiction, created by a hack to service an agenda. This isn't one of those "You couldn't make it up" stories, it's not that incredible. It's just insulting and stupid.
You could make it up, and he did.
|
|
|
Sep 07, 2018 | www.wsws.org
The UK government and media have doubled down on their anti-Russian campaign following Wednesday's announcement by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that two men have been named as suspects in the poisoning of former Russian/British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia.
The police released passport photos and CCTV images of two men in various locations, including Gatwick Airport and Salisbury. But despite hysterical news broadcasts and front-page headlines regarding "Russian assassins," the public know nothing more substantively about the events of Sunday, March 4, than they did more than six months ago.
CPS Director of Legal Services Sue Hemming said that evidence from counter-terrorism police meant "it is clearly in the public interest to charge Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, who are Russian nationals," with the attempted murder of Sergei, Yulia and police officer Nick Bailey.
Prime Minister Theresa May then told parliament that, in addition to the police investigation, the security and intelligence agencies had conducted their own investigation and, "based on a body of intelligence, the Government has concluded that the two individuals named by the police and CPS are officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also known as the GRU."
She added: "So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state."
The Russian Foreign Ministry has categorically rejected the UK's claims, stating the names of the two men "do not mean anything to us."
May did not detail the intelligence she was supposedly acting on. Instead she singled out Russia as the main enemy of the West that had to confronted, declaring, "This chemical weapons attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian behaviour that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the world."
"Back in March, Russia sought to sow doubt and uncertainty about the evidence we presented to this House -- and some were minded to believe them," May told parliament. "Today's announcement shows that we were right." Except that it doesn't. The new narrative is that "Petrov" and "Boshirov" flew into Gatwick airport on Friday, March 2. CCTV footage purportedly verifies this. They checked into a budget hotel in Bow, east London, and the next day, according to police, travelled to Salisbury, staying in the area for several hours, before returning to London.
The pair then returned to Salisbury on Sunday, March 4. Police claim they are shown on CCTV at 11:58 a.m., on Wilton Road, "moments before the attack" on Sergei Skripal.
The police say two more images show the "suspects at Salisbury train station at 13.50 on Sunday, 4 March, as they embark on their journey back to London." Another image shows the "suspects passing through passport control at London Heathrow at 19.28 on Sunday evening (4 March) -- in the image, 'Petrov' is at the front and 'Boshirov' at the back."
May's definitive assertion of Russian authorship was contradicted by Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, National Lead for Counter-Terrorism Policing. Asked by the press if he had any evidence that the two men were Russian State operatives, he said, "No." Basu said in his statement that "it is likely that they were travelling under aliases and that these are not their real names."
BBC Security Correspondent Gordon Corera reported that he understood the authorities identified the pair "a while back" and "may also know their real names." But if so, why are they not being made public?
Former UK ambassador Craig Murray asked: "1. Why did two alleged GRU agents travel under false names and fake passports, but still use Russian names and Russian passports? If they had used EU passports -- say from Lithuania or Estonia for example -- they wouldn't have needed a visa, thanks to EU freedom of movement agreements, and could still have spoken Russian without raising suspicion."
Murray retweeted a statement from a freelance journalist, Neil Clark, pointing out: "If the two men were identified coming through Gatwick, it is impossible that the police do not know what kind of visa they were travelling on. Something is very wrong here -- ties in with the fact that the photos released [showing grainy images of the men's faces on dark backgrounds] are not UK visa standard photos."
Among the glaring oddities in the new account is that the two photos released of "Petrov" and "Boshirov" shows them both in what appears to be the same space at Gatwick airport at precisely the same second (16:22:43 on March 2, 2018.) Raising the physically impossibility, Murray suggests the CCTV images may have been doctored . The police are now claiming that the two are in different but similar places passing CCTV cameras at exactly the same time.
The government's latest narrative fails to correspond with claims it has maintained for months that the Skripals were poisoned by "novichok" being applied to the front door knob of Sergei's house.
Murray points out that the Skripals left their home at 9:15 a.m. on March 4 and were assumed not to have returned home, before they were found collapsed. "But the Metropolitan Police state that Boshirov and Petrov did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the poisoning. That means that they could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals' doorknob before noon at the earliest."
An article on the Off Guardian website noted that the police said the Bow Hotel was "contaminated" with novichok, but no one has been reported ill in six months at the hotel. Moreover, to contaminate the room "the suspects would have to physically apply the poison to it, and since they allegedly left [sic] country on March 4th -- the same day as the alleged attack -- the contamination must have happened BEFORE Sergei Skripal was poisoned."
Also, previously the Metropolitan Police said that it was connecting the poisoning of the Skripals with that of Dawn Sturgess and her partner Charley Rowley. Dawn died in hospital after being exposed to what was described as a novichok on July 8. Rowley is now seriously ill with reported meningitis.
Yet Basu commented, "We don't yet know where the suspects disposed of the Novichok they used to attack the door, where Dawn and Charlie got the bottle that poisoned them, or if it is the same bottle used in both poisonings."
The government's narrative cannot be taken at face value, especially as it is supplied by the same security services that faked "evidence" of Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction" to justify pre-emptive war against Iraq.
Moreover, the timing of the government's latest disclosure is highly suspect. Yesterday, the UK raised its new allegations against Moscow at the United Nations Security Council, after which the US, France, Germany and Canada issued a joint statement that the Russian government "almost certainly" approved the poisoning of the Skripals.
The same day the European Union announced it was extending, for a further six months, the sanctions it had imposed on around 150 Russian individuals and 50 companies following the right-wing Western-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. Complaints of Russian aggression in Crimea have been used to carry through a massive NATO build-up on Russia's borders.
May wants the EU to go further and follow the US, which imposed additional sanctions from August 27 on the basis that Russia had used "chemical weapons in violation of international law or lethal chemical weapons against its own nationals." This include terminating aid, except on urgent humanitarian grounds, restricting access to US credit, ending aspects of financing and prohibiting exports to Russia of "restricted goods or technology." Russia has 90 days to allow inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to verify it does not have chemical weapons, or Washington will impose a far more severe set of sanctions.
These measures unfold as the US renews threats over the operation by forces loyal to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad against Al Qaeda affiliates that control the northwestern province of Idlib. Denouncing the "threat of an imminent Assad regime attack, backed by Russia and Iran," the White House stated that, in the event of a chemical weapons attack, "the United States and its Allies will respond swiftly and appropriately."
Washington and London are not responding out of humanitarian concerns. They have backed the Al Qaeda-affiliated terror groups in Syria as part of their regime-change operations in the Middle East, and broader geostrategic objectives against Russia and Iran. As in previous instances -- Douma in April for example -- Washington's threats amount to an invitation to the Al Qaeda forces to stage an incident to justify military intervention by the US and its allies.
On the one hand, the ruling class want us to believe that Russian operations are highly sophisticated, that we should all live in suspense of when the next incident will occur, that we should hunger for vengeance, and yet when the media and government provide their "evidence" it shows that the so-called Russian operatives are incredibly inept. Of course, what else could be expected from manufactured narratives.Skip • 3 hours agoThe British ruling class and it's security forces are cold blooded killers for hundreds of years. There is nothing too savage below them. Nothing they say can be taken at face value.лидия • 4 hours agoThis whole affair has been a set up from the beginning. As we see know, it is used once again when needed. Russia is about to make a final push in Syria. This means, if they are victorious, America and Britain will have been stopped in the Middle East.
England has nothing left to lose. Nothing is off the table for their survival.
Jsut to assume tat two secret agents sent on an assassination plot from the Russian government would leave such obvious traces is absurd. Using Russian passports, needing a visa to enter, flying from Russia direct to London and then back... The British want us to think that the Russian secret service does not know about all the CCTV cameras in London, or England in general. Or the advanced level of security at Gatwick.
Anti-NATO Russians joke about this "new proof", I have read a funny short poem about it, and my favorite joke was - looks like there is not even Lestrade in Scotland Yard anymore.
|
|
|
Sep 07, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org
talked about his apprehension of the social media . From the story: He saves his greatest condemnation for the scourge of fake news and societal manipulation on large social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Despite the founders of the social giants pledging to do more to ensure public debate is not artificially skewed, Plattner believes the solution will have to come from law enforcement and criminal penalties. He says humans are genetically wired to thrive on rumours, dating back to ancient times when rumours about what was going on in the next village would be on everyone's mind. He fears social platforms have simply become rumour distribution machines of unbelievable power.
"I was very optimistic that social networks would improve access to information and democracy in general, but I am very disappointed that the opposite is happening," he says. "Professional information producers undermine the social networks, undermine states and elections. It is unbelievable what is happening and we have a huge problem." Plattner draws a parallel with insider trading, which he says is as easy to commit as social media manipulation, but is not so common because people know they will be slugged with criminal convictions. "This is all before we look at the exploitation of personal data, where we are naked in front of the social networks, because we undress ourselves, and not only literally," he says. "I think this will continue until we have the legal systems properly looking at it, and have strong laws that people have to obey."
|
|
|
Sep 07, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Ort , Sep 5, 2018 2:41:45 PM | linkFYI, Craig Murray has a new post on the same subject: "The Impossible Photo" .Some commenters there who claim to be familiar with the airport have already noted that the men were surely exiting from parallel walkways ("channels"), and/or that the CCTV clock was simply malfunctioning.
Even if both claims are true, it doesn't explain away the remarkable congruence between the men's supposedly separate and independent progress through the walkways. Again, some commenters who purport to be personally familiar with the location assert that there are visible differences in the "two" walkways shown in the photos-- but to me they look identical.
This is still another dodgy, ambiguous piece of "evidence" to prop up the ongoing Big Lie. In the weeks following the Skripal event, the UK officials began making such ludicrous and incredible assertions that I naïvely expected that their colossal deceit would blow up in their faces sooner than later.
As with the fraudulent "Mueller investigation" in the US, despite the united efforts of government officials and a colluding, servile mass-media insisting that there's a (sinister Russian) "there" there, I foolishly thought that the overall absence of actual evidence, or even a plausible rationale connecting the dubious dots, was an overreach that would rapidly reach a fatal point of diminishing returns.
But I underestimated the staying power of Big Lies, and the Big Liars who tell them.
Teganjovnka , Sep 5, 2018 2:42:29 PM | link
Another oddity, the hotel the men stayed at, which was supposedly contaminated by Novichok as discovered on May the 4th - I did a news search for this hotel for the period March - September 4th and couldn't find a single reference to it being cordoned off or investigated by the police. Did they let people continue to use the hotel without telling them it could be contaminated? Did nobody notice police and men in hazmat suits there? Or was the name of the hotel d noticed?ken , Sep 5, 2018 2:42:47 PM | linkEveryone,,, EVERYONE knows it's all BS. BUT, everyone talking about it gives it traction. I find this no different than the USA scoundrels worried about Syrian citizens in Idlib. Anything the West says or does is USDA Grade AAA horse hockey.james , Sep 5, 2018 2:51:56 PM | linkand the timing for this now is?? c'mon..Tom Welsh , Sep 5, 2018 2:58:07 PM | linkAs to the UK government being able to fake the involvement of GRU agents - remember that Sergei Skripal himself was a British spy while working for the GRU. Why not others?rndmdude , Sep 5, 2018 3:16:12 PM | linkThe most worrying angle, as far as I am concerned, is the utter unbelievability of these stories. Exactly in line with 9/11 (three buildings knocked down by two planes), the Boston Marathon bombing, countless supposed multiple murders in the USA that do not seem to have taken place as officially described, MH17, and the Syrian "chemical weapons" attacks.
The official explanations of all those stories are so weak and inconsistent that they would be rejected as plot lines for Dr Who or CSI. So what is their little game? I can think of two unpleasant possibilities.
- They are trying to calibrate exactly how grotesque a set of lies they can pass off without any public protest or outcry.
- They are compiling a list of the few people who are both intelligent and bold enough to point out the obvious discrepancies in public.
Clearly those timestamps are planted on the pictures taken from screen.. Well maybe they thought that they only need 24 hours or something.Hermius , Sep 5, 2018 3:37:26 PM | linkHow do the British know they were false name?Mark2 , Sep 5, 2018 3:45:06 PM | linkSo we had Bolton clearly stating in the media time and time again --- if chemical weapons are found in Idlib it would be a game changer to US policy in Syria, thus prompting those desperate cornered brutal rebels, offering a last way out of there situation. Now we have the prime minister. UK giving a statement about new evidence re Salisbury, chemical Russia. I would put a weeks wage on there being a chemical attack in Syria Idlib enytime now ! This is the UK prime minster aiding a massive brutal crime.vk , Sep 5, 2018 3:56:16 PM | linkThis prime minister got in to power by a slim margine on the back of 3 false flag terror attacks 2 in London one in Manchester persuading the public to go for the get tough vote . Are we gulable or what ?
It is obvious this whole novichok thing is a false flag op. The only question is why did the UK government did this.AriusArmenian , Sep 5, 2018 4:00:47 PM | linkUK agencies have a long track record back to before WW2 running operations to get the US into a war. Their recent false flag operations inside the UK are to soften up the US/UK public in advance of the UK managed chemical weapon false flag attack in Syria they are clearly threatening in advance.Anonymous , Sep 5, 2018 4:04:48 PM | linkThis is beyond ridiculous that the dried out husk of the UK is beating its chest for war with Russia. I almost wish that they would get their war and be beaten flat.
Just yesterday the Russian embassy in the UK released this statement: Today marks exactly six months since the Russian citizens Sergei and Yulia Skripal were taken to Salisbury District Hospital under obscure circumstances...mdroy , Sep 5, 2018 4:06:42 PM | linkThere are times of the day when 2 passengers could arrive at an empty passport control, enter two different tunnels at the same time and arrive at exactly the same second at equivalent gates. Not many times, because it means that there is no queue at either tunnel. And 16:22 is not one of these times.TJ , Sep 5, 2018 4:07:41 PM | linkPutin's Novichok assassins identified. Pictured smiling, walking UK streets -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBaVe19amhUCirce , Sep 5, 2018 4:12:03 PM | link@16Deltaeus , Sep 5, 2018 4:16:44 PM | linkMy experience through those boarding bridges is that when boarding people walk normal pace and when exiting they do so at a faster pace down the bridge. I guess they want get to their luggage quickly.
Køn @ 14 "In fact anyone insisting that this timestamp is some gotcha loses a lot of credibility in my eyes."Lochearn , Sep 5, 2018 4:30:37 PM | linkDon't be a gallah, Køn! You think that two members of a highly trained hit squad are going to walk through Heathrow together? You've got to be dreaming. Have you no concept of Operational Security? Dear oh dear...
The two strong-looking men take it in turns to carry what looks like a light backpack which is kind of odd in itself. If nerve gas had either been sprayed or smeared, one or both would have to have used a full protective suit, which consists of a bulky gas mask, jacket, trousers and substantial boots, which would have called for a much bigger backpack.eyespy , Sep 5, 2018 4:33:10 PM | linkThese photos show the same time but different locations. These are the security barriers between passport control and the baggage reclaim hall, there are a number of parallel gates that open automatically and are monitored by CCTV. The high resolution photos on the Met website show a different camera angles: The Petrov photo shows a white flat surface with a thin red stripe in the lower right corner and the top of the wall panels on the upper left. The Boshirov picture show a much wider red stripe (and no white surface) and the top of the panels is not visible. So you have two different gates entered at the same time.Circe , Sep 5, 2018 4:44:50 PM | linkI'm no expert but allow me to play devil's advocate. What if they have two cameras on different angles with separate receivers in case one goes offline and their clock is not in sync so the second camera stamps same time when it's one second later on first. It just seems that if there was Photoshop involved they would think of changing the timestamp and inserting person in precisely same angle. Of course it doesn't explain why they would take pictures from two different cameras, but maybe face appeared clearer?Norwegian , Sep 5, 2018 4:46:24 PM | linkOne of the images may have been flipped: https://postimg.cc/image/n0oijez53/rac , Sep 5, 2018 4:46:28 PM | linkWhich airports have parallel disimabarkation tunnels then? I've been through 4 airports in 3 different countries in the past two months and each time it was a single tunnel. The only time I've seen two tunnels was when I was on a flight witha first class and even then it sort of branched off, near the door of the plane.Pictorex , Sep 5, 2018 4:58:53 PM | linkCould it be the same corridor at two different locations at the same moment? This would explain the different angles of the cameras, which maybe were placed at a similar location to the railings etc.Circe , Sep 5, 2018 4:59:23 PM | linkThe door of the plane only accommodates one boarding bridge. Whoever has been through that airport can clear this up.Circe , Sep 5, 2018 5:03:10 PM | link@ 37S , Sep 5, 2018 5:10:46 PM | linkAnd how would they manage to pass at the exact same time through two different corridors?
Historian and political analyst Vladimir Kornilov wrote an article for RIA Novosti comparing the famous 1924 SIS forgery, "Zinoviev letter", to the ongoing Skripal affair: https://ria.ru/analytics/20180905/1527822792.html ( machine translation ; the translation is good, except that "the Violins" should read as "the Skripals").Køn , Sep 5, 2018 5:16:47 PM | linkDeltaeus... kindly please desist from insulting me in anitpodean. I make no assertions about trained or untrained hit squads or how they might behave. I am merely saying that anyone who thinks these timestamps represent anything suspicious or out of the ordinary is chasing their own tails.james , Sep 5, 2018 5:18:44 PM | linkThe UK authorities present pictures of two men that travelled together on a flight from Moscow to London Gatwick. They went through parallel security sluices at the same time as they were walking together. At which point they were automatically photographed. It could just as easily have been that the time stamp was 1 second apart or even 2 seconds, or as is in fact the case, less than 1 second apart. NOTE: They may have triggered the automatic camera 999ms apart and still had the same timestamp so it is not strictly accurate to say that they were pictured at exactly the same time. The sluice appears to be about 4 metres long up to the point where the camera is triggered. I can walk 4 metres in less than 2 seconds. Which does not give a large time frame in which the walking pace of these two men can diverge.
There is so much more suspicious and contentious in todays UK announcement that it is ridiculous and counter productive to waste time on an easily explained time stamp.
interesting article in russia on this ..it goes into the 2 men and what they know of them.. i ran it thru google translate..Occidentosis , Sep 5, 2018 5:24:45 PM | linkThey are not even trying anymore. I wonder if it has a direct correlation to the gullibility and intelligence of the West's public.Norwegian , Sep 5, 2018 5:29:46 PM | linkThis is an obvious fabrication of evidence. What they did was to take 2 photos from the same tunnel using the same camera at different times, but with the camera rotated about 20 degrees between them (notice the slightly different fish-eye lens distortions). Afterwards they flipped one of the images horizontally and added time-stamps to the images, but forgot to change the times between them.Alaric , Sep 5, 2018 5:36:15 PM | linkI reversed the above process, aligned the images and made a GIF animation to prove it, see https://postimg.cc/image/x1ixk7r4x/
These people are stupid.
The timing is interesting. This is an attempt to buttress a future claim that Assad used chem weapons in Idlib. Lame. Who believes this stuff?karlof1 , Sep 5, 2018 5:52:02 PM | linkGood catch on the time stamp B.
Gatwick not Heathrow. I highly suggest reading the comments to Craig Murray's blog post. Yes, as here there're some repetitive comments, but many good points are also raised. Perhaps the best is the lack of a "tag" identifying the camera location as at the security station you have many CCTV images that are very similar: Something like Jetway2 Customs4, or some such. IMO, the photos and story are contrived just as the rest of the hoax is--except for the fact that at least one person has died and likely the Skripals most certainly--she wanted to return to Russia and take Sergei with her.uncle tungsten , Sep 5, 2018 6:00:03 PM | linkWell done UK comrades! So now you will release all the cctv from the original Salisbury incident so we can see every detail of the cunning ruskies eh! including the entire street videos, Mill pub and park videos too; and in high resolution this time please. Plus as the case is solved would you be so kind as to release the complete OPCW reports and the Porton Down reports too.Bart Hansen , Sep 5, 2018 6:03:11 PM | linkCan't have enough open government in the worlds foremost democracy now, can we?
Sy Hersch blames the poisoning of Skripals on the Russian mafia who found out he was working with MI6 to reveal their European operations.dh , Sep 5, 2018 6:17:48 PM | linkCould these two guys be of the Russian mafia? Them being not of the Russian IC might explain how the poison was less than lethal for all who came in contact.
@49 Sorry Sy but your theory doesn't hold up. Teresa May has said they were from the GRU. Here are her exact words...Laguerre , Sep 5, 2018 6:23:59 PM | link"Based on this work, I can today tell the House that, based on a body of intelligence, the Government has concluded that the two individuals named by the police and CPS are officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also known as the GRU.
The GRU is a highly disciplined organisation with a well-established chain of command. So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state."
Please try harder.
dhAngry Panda , Sep 5, 2018 6:27:41 PM | linkSorry Sy but your theory doesn't hold up. Teresa May has said they were from the GRU.Incredible. You believe that what May said is true, because she said it!Here is an interesting side note, relating to the statement made by "Sue Hemming, the CPS director of legal services" (e.g. as in this Guardian piece .Norwegian , Sep 5, 2018 6:28:15 PM | linkWe will not be applying to Russia for the extradition of these men as the Russian constitution does not permit extradition of its own nationals. Russia has made this clear following requests for extradition in other cases. Should this position change then an extradition request would be made.
This is a blatant lie. Russia's Constitution (available here in Russian states the following in Article 63, Section 2:
В Российской Федерации не допускается выдача другим государствам лиц, преследуемых за политические убеждения, а также за действия (или бездействие), не признаваемые в Российской Федерации преступлением. Выдача лиц, обвиняемых в совершении преступления, а также передача осужденных для отбывания наказания в других государствах осуществляются на основе федерального закона или международного договора Российской Федерации.Which means (my own translation, but Google Translate is your friend if you do not believe me):
In the Russian Federation it is not permitted to extradite to other states individuals who are persecuted for their political beliefs, as well as for actions (or inaction) that are not deemed criminal in the Russian Federation. Extradition of individuals accused of committing a crime, as well as transfer of convicts to serve their sentences in other states, is performed on the basis of federal law or international agreements of the Russian Federation.
I must confess that I am not up on the most current version of Russian criminal law, but I believe "attempted murder utilizing a banned chemical weapon" does still qualify as a crime over there, and, moreover, is not considered "political beliefs". But, of course, an official extradition requests would entail also handing over the Crown's evidence against the accused, which...well, clearly there is so much of it that the Crown just doesn't wish to share any.
Anyhow, something to ponder.
@47 karlof1james , Sep 5, 2018 6:28:20 PM | linkPerhaps the best is the lack of a "tag" identifying the camera location as at the security station you have many CCTV images that are very similar: Something like Jetway2 Customs4, or some such.Se my post @45 (animation link). The camera location is the same in both images, they just rotated the camera, and flipped one image horizontally. If you download the MET "originals" and repeat what I did you find the match to be 100%. With identical time stamps, you know this is fabricated evidence. There is really no other plausible or (even possible) explanation.It is virtually a confession from the police.
i think dh is being sarcastic!lysias , Sep 5, 2018 6:29:40 PM | linkIt isn't the GRU (Glavnoye Razdevyvatel'noye Upravleniye, Main Intelligence Directorate) any more. In 2010, the name was changed to GU (Glavnoye Upravleniye, Main Directorate).sejomoje , Sep 5, 2018 6:44:10 PM | link"Norwegian" is correct. These pics have been tampered with bigly. "Kon" points out that one has a "red line" while one has a more solid looking red area. That is explained by the picture flipping and tilting. The red line is a framelike border of something. In one pic we see that part that's further from the camera and it looks like a slim red line. In the other pic we see the part of it which is closer to the camera, and is ALSO the corner of the line, so it appears to be something completely different when it's actually just 2 parts of the same puzzle.karlof1 , Sep 5, 2018 6:46:54 PM | linkMy bet is that they were taken at different times of day, those tunnels always let natural light in. Unless a filter was intentionally applied(to further suggest two tunnels). There has been some photoshop fussing with the other identifying blobs - like the dirt on the camera lense and on the floors have been erased or blurred in the flipped pic! It's mad obvious.
Thanks Norwegian, I am posting that gif all over the place.
Norwegian @53--sejomoje , Sep 5, 2018 6:47:28 PM | linkThanks for your reply! Another comment mentioned the ability of such digital cameras to self-crop as both pics are cropped as someone provided the pixel dimensions. IMO, this is just more BigLie piled atop the preceding BigLies--doubling-down is the Neocon way after all. All timed with Idlib, no doubt. My question along with many others: Where are the other passengers having to travel through the same portals?
My explanation: Human images were added to an image(s) of an empty portal(s).
"It is virtually a confession from the police". Yes, one doesn't know whether to be hopeful of a whistleblower, or just devastated at the incompetence of the so-called intelligence agencies behind these fabrications. It's hardly ever the former unfortunately.Norwegian , Sep 5, 2018 6:49:18 PM | link@57 sejomojeBart Hansen , Sep 5, 2018 6:52:04 PM | linkThanks. Please share far and wide.
James, I agree about the sarcasm. But when May brings her "resolute" voice to bear, one bows before her gravitas.MadMax2 , Sep 5, 2018 7:02:05 PM | linkAfter all, it is "highly likely" that Putin decided to queer the time-honored rule not to mess with a spy swap.
@Norwegiansejomoje , Sep 5, 2018 7:06:07 PM | linkNice work with the gif, it appears exactly how you describe it... just amazing fuckery. Re: the timestamp, its so sloppy it pretty much a taunt: 'none of you sheep give a toss cos there's not a critical thought amongst ya'
I agree Madmax, so much taunting in these things. This seems ahole 'nother level though. A virtual middle finger to the "conspiracy theorists".dh , Sep 5, 2018 7:06:08 PM | link@54 Thank you james. Obviously I am going to have to work harder on my sarcasm mode. Or maybe just quit posting.Virgile , Sep 5, 2018 7:07:18 PM | linkHow can May be so sure they belong to the GRU if they do not know the real identity of the two guys?somebody , Sep 5, 2018 7:09:59 PM | linkPosted by: karlof1 | Sep 5, 2018 6:46:54 PM | 58dh , Sep 5, 2018 7:22:25 PM | linkThat is what it looked like to me (I work with photoshop), but then, why would they do this?
Russian journalists did find the corresponding flight bookings
Only reason would be that the people on the airport CCTV looked different from the people on CCTV in Salisbury.
So the departing image would have to be fake , too. Or it is real but of people who did not arrive the Friday before.
@65 Good question. And with all due respect to b I don't think the airport pictures prove much. Who were these two? Why did they go to Salisbury? It looks too sloppy to be GRU. Russian Mafia contract killers is my guess. Unless the whole story is an elaborate MI6 concoction and all the CCTV photos are fake.jayc , Sep 5, 2018 7:27:59 PM | linkIt may be the release of this material was scheduled to coincide with the US sanctions announced a few weeks ago, as those were said to be motivated by the Skripal case, but then held back for domestic political reasons, as May's position has weakened just the past two weeks. The bonus gratuitous finger-pointing at Corbyn would serve its purpose today or back in August.Kane , Sep 5, 2018 7:33:18 PM | linkIt all relies ultimately on" a body of evidence gathered by intelligence" and we know from recent past experiences of anglo/ ameriocan Intelligence that that cannot be trusted to be either valid or reliable .cdvision , Sep 5, 2018 7:41:25 PM | linkdh @50 the Met policeman in charges of the investigation was asked at a press conference if he has any evidence the 2 in the images were GRU. He said NO. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/437729-skripal-poisoning-suspects-russia/dh , Sep 5, 2018 7:57:09 PM | link@69 Very honest of him. As with the original Skripal 'poisoning' it looks like another case of blaming Russia, i.e Putin, on flimsy evidence.corkie , Sep 5, 2018 8:10:40 PM | linkPlease people these photos were taken in exactly the same place. Nothing has been rotated. Notice on the right hand side there is a a small piece of a red security notice in the two photos. You will need to see the original police photos to see this. In only one of the four lanes is that possible. The one on the right as viewed from the exit. notice that this is the only lane where the steel handrail on the right extends so far on the white panel. Two different photos of the same lane with the same timestamp. ???? I'd say in both images are fake.gully , Sep 5, 2018 8:16:00 PM | link
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1570429,-0.1626642,2a,89.7y,192.36h,83.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5aRAGxER5MlF-9kpw8ZyRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656@norwegianMadMax2 , Sep 5, 2018 8:18:32 PM | link
there are four staggered gateways. almost identical and with almost identical camera positions.so i am not 100% convinced by your theory.
Ort 17Julian , Sep 5, 2018 8:21:13 PM | link
Yes, it appears, like me, you are enjoying our latest visit to Wonderland where a great many things are possible... all you need to do is believe. Christopher Steele has done a smackdown job of reinvigorating the Non Fiction shelves at my library. Who knew high treason and golden showers could ever work together.A beautiful story, this Skripal affair...designed and timed to draw the public into emotional judgments, against reason and logic, immediately prior to the Russian pummeling of jihadi scum. One wonders what sort of blowback arises from such psychological conditioning. Hmmm...
I wouldn't say these images prove anything either way. Perhaps they are doctored, but what if they were from customs entry points side-by-side? The two men have been walking together so presumably they'd go through the customs walkways at exactly the same time. These are not photos from the walkway off the plane - that much is clear.Pft , Sep 5, 2018 8:25:58 PM | linkOn the spectrum of what is going on you have to go from one end (all this evidence is completely fabricated - these might be images of 'dead men' so no one can step forward to personally refute them) all the way over to the Brits are telling the truth.
Most likely, it's somewhere in the middle, but impossible to say exactly where.
Even without the time stamp discrepancy I am at loss to understand what the photos prove. Absolutely nothing. I suppose they just want to keep the story in the publics mind in preparation for the next "Russia did it " false flag. Coming soon to a theater near you. Ever notice September-November makes for the most exciting times? No wonder many season premiers start in winter/spring nowPanopticon , Sep 5, 2018 8:28:57 PM | linkWhy now, when the CCTV 'evidence' must have been available for months? Just like the Douma pantomime and subsequent bombing of Syria, this is clearly setting the scene for a western assault on Idlib, possibly this weekend.Yeah, Right , Sep 5, 2018 8:39:00 PM | link@71 Nice theory, except that the security notice in those police photos appear to be mounted far too low to correspond with their location in that google maps image, even on the one lane that you nominate. You can see that best in the "Boshirov" photo where the top-left of the notice can be seen.Julian , Sep 5, 2018 8:41:03 PM | linkIn the google maps image the signs are at head-height, so a line drawn from the ccd to a "pretend eyeline" in Google Maps would suggest that the security camera would be recording the bottom-left of that sign, not the top-left corner.
That walk-though was recorded in September 2017.
The security footage was filmed in March 2018.It isn't a stretch to believe that between these two dates the signs were moved lower and closer to the guardrail.
Anyone in Ol' Blighty want to walk up to those gates at Gatwick and tell us?
Re: Posted by: Bob | Sep 5, 2018 2:13:08 PM | 7gully , Sep 5, 2018 8:46:19 PM | linkPresumably they were on the same flight? If they have identified the flights - presumably the Russians would be able to ID these guys at the other end - in some way at least.
@77Brian , Sep 5, 2018 8:46:30 PM | link
different but pretty similar gateway @gatwick airport with lower mounted signs. imo this is where the pictures were taken:Russia needs to do more to get back their national Yulia Skripal . She's been brazenly abducted by UK regime. If Brit Sh disappear na Russian imagine the fate of Julian Assange if he steps out of that embassyJen , Sep 5, 2018 8:47:26 PM | linkCorkie @ 71, Gully @ 72:Yeah, Right , Sep 5, 2018 8:51:35 PM | linkIf you compare the photos you posted with the photos in Bernhard's post, you will notice something missing from the photos in Bernhard's post.
Where are the security doors with the white-barred red circles on the glass in Bernhard's photos?
@71 Just to be clear about what I am saying, because my previous post may be confusing: if you look at the two security shots and note the top-left corner ("Boshirov") and left-flank ("Petrov") of those signs then both suggest that the bottom-left corner of that security notice will be just above (as in almost but not quite level-with) the top of the guardrail.Brian , Sep 5, 2018 8:52:13 PM | linkYet if you look here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1570429,-0.1626642,2a,75y,198.05h,91.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5aRAGxER5MlF-9kpw8ZyRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
you can see that the bottom-left of the security sign is nearly a metre above the level of the guardrail.Unless there is massive foreshortening and distortion in those security camera feeds then I would suggest that those signs have been moved between September 2017 and March 2018.
In which case, of course, your observation is not going to be valid.
Two Russian nationals . Brits decide they are Russian assassins . Were they seem committing an assassination ? Imagine any Russian tourist now could be labelled an assassin and abducted like Yulia Skripal and held incommunicado . Russia should take Britain to court over this behaviourPiotr Berman , Sep 5, 2018 8:54:10 PM | linkAs I wrote before, the case reeks of planted evidence. A normal logic of investigation would be to inspect "probable leads" ASAP, and to perform tests ASAP. Instead, the famous door knob was tested with one month delay, and the hotel room, with two month delay. But planting evidence in an improvised mode requires planning and debates how to do it. The logistics of planting evidence are the most plausible explanation why it was done at the place where Skripals lived rather than close to the place where they together lost consciousness. Planting evidence in the hotel is simplicity itself, because it is very easy to do it in a secret lab.Bran , Sep 5, 2018 9:08:08 PM | linkOTH, pictures have semi-plausible explanation and Ruslan Boshirov is not a frequent name, probably Muslim (Boshir/Bashir is an Arabic name, ev/ov is a Russian ending).
Two men (traveling together on Russian passports) are seen leaving a flight from Moscow and (in the most heavily CCTV monitored country in the world), immediately take public transport directly to and from the scene of the crime.MadMax2 , Sep 5, 2018 9:17:42 PM | linkIts very hard to imagine that any intelligence agency would be so sloppy as to use their own nationals, own passports, travel together, take direct flights from their own capital, use public transport, make no effort to avoid CCTV, casually dispose of vital evidence where it was certain to be found (a deadly poison left in a brandname perfume box at a charity donation bin? someone was going to open it eventually), etc. There are many more flaws but there are also more significant questions.
Is there any strong reason to believe that US or UK intelligence were less likely to poison Skripal than Russia? Did he perhaps have evidence regarding the Steele Dossier they wanted to silence? If so, is there any reason we should not suspect the men in the picture of working for non-Russian intelligence who are deliberately trying to point the finger of blame at Russia?
Leaving that aside, is there any reason not to think the men n the picture may have been members of organized crime for some reason upset with Skripal? This might explain the lack of professional tradecraft.
In short, even if we accept that the people in the photographs were responsible for the poisonings, there has been no evidence presented to link them to the Russian government other than the fact that they travelled directly from Moscow on Russian passports, a fact that should actually be seen as making it less likely they were Russian agents.
Fyi, there are 2 terminals at Gatwick, north and south. Though, as Pft, Julian and others have said, what do these pictures really say at this stage...? Only guilty by the logic of highly likely.Jen , Sep 5, 2018 9:27:29 PM | linkPiotr Berman @ 84:Dr. Wellington Yueh , Sep 5, 2018 9:36:16 PM | link"Ruslan Boshirov" is supposed to be Tajik. I noticed the last name "Boshirov" too ("Boshir" = Tajik rendering of "Bashir" or "Bashar").
Bashar / Bashir is a common boys' name and surname in some Muslim countries (but maybe not Iran). Also a common surname among Christian communities in Lebanon. A former governor of New South Wales had that surname. Both her parents were of Lebanese background.
Ruslan is a common boys' name in Russia and countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. It is derived from the Turkic name Arslan. As Tajiks are an Iranian-speaking people, I am not sure if the name is popular with them. From what I have been able to find out online, Tajiks seem to prefer Persian names.
Hmm, someone in Britain didn't do their homework terribly well.
Heh...it seems to be working. We're now talking about this instead of the Idlib campaign.vk , Sep 5, 2018 9:41:30 PM | link@ Posted by: Bart Hansen | Sep 5, 2018 6:03:11 PM | 49alaff , Sep 5, 2018 9:41:50 PM | linkWell, if Hersh has the evidence for this, I won't be doubting him. I'm sincerely open to any good theory -- the only thing I'm certain is that it wasn't the Kremlin: there's simply no gain for Russia in this.
Personally, I think relity is much more mundane: the UK, given its objective reality post-Brexit, simply decided to (re)synchronize (update) its geopolitical position with the USA's. When the USA decided to jump into the madness of Russophobia after Trump's victory, the UK simply had to jump after because it is so dependent on the Americans they kinda didn't have a choice.
Maybe, in a parallel universe, if Corbyn had won the 2017 snap election, we could visualize a different position from the British. But that door is definitely close now -- and even if he had won, we have to face the fact the UK is simply the natural ally of the USA in the European Peninsula (the most stable one -- of course there are valuable American satrapies in Poland, the ex-Yugoslavian republics not-named Serbia, the Baltic States and the new, desintegrated, nazi-Ukraine; but they are of the military outpost-type, nearer the "danger").
This is nothing more but an endless conglomeration of lies. Not just mistakes or fallacies, but a deliberate lies. It is clear for all adequate people who have brains.james , Sep 5, 2018 9:43:49 PM | linkWhy it is now the British authorities decided to shake off the dust from the forgotten "Skripal case" and to revive it? Well, Syria is the answer, of course. In particular, upcoming (in fact, already started) Idlib liberation.
They need something to try to put pressure on Russia. What tools do they have? "Skripal case", "Russian meddling in elections" (aka "Russian hackers"), "Russian doping", situation in Donbass, illegal detentions/abductions of Russian citizens (Ukraine did it with Kirill Vyshinsky in May, the US did it with Maria Butina recently etc.), cheap provocations with chemical weapons in Syria to accuse Assad/Russia.
I would pick three directions - the "Skripal case", fake "chemical attacks" in Syria and deliberate aggravation of the situation in Donbass (terrorist act against DPR head Alexander Zakharchenko is just the beginning) are, apparently (in their opinion), the most effective measures to influence Russia to change its policy in Syria. These tools will be used. Simultaneously, or in a particular order.
By the way, one must not exclude possible chemical provocations in Ukraine. Ukrainian terrorist regime has not used it yet, but all is possible. Especially now, after "Skripal case" is revived and some fake "chemical attacks" are definitely will happen in Idlib (giving FUKUS a "legitimate reason" to launch aggression on Syria again). The CyberBerkut hacker team (a kind of Fancy Bears) recently reported that chemical provocations in Ukraine (in Donbass) are in preparation stage, and that American instructors participate in organizing of this provocation. Not a fact that this will happen, of course, but still this possibility must not be ruled out.
As for these two men, "discovered" a half of a year after the incident... For any sane person, the proposal to believe that these two are GRU agents is an insult to his intellectual abilities. "GRU agents", who flew direct(!) Flight from Moscow, and flew back the same direct(!) Flight. "GRU agents", who in general did not even tried to disguise themselves, and, as if specifically, tried to be caught by all surveillance cameras in the UK. "GRU agents", who used their passports(!) instead of coming to the UK secretly (for example, through Ireland). "GRU agents", who left the "Novichok" traces wherever possible, and then carelessly threw the bottle on the street. "GRU agents", who for some reason decided to use such a strange, dangerous and uncomfortable method as "poisoning the victim with a chemical warfare agent(!)" instead of easily and unnoticeably shoot a victim from a gun with a silencer (or strangle the victim at home). "GRU agents", who did not notice anything for eight(!) years, and then suddenly woke up and realized that they released Skripal from Russia "without punishment"...
I can continue this endlessly. The longer the list of lies becomes, the longer the list of disproof.
@48 uncle tungsten.. lol.. so true!jayc , Sep 5, 2018 9:52:40 PM | link@65 virgile.. that is what some of us have concluded from the start.. phony passports or phony characters - hard to know what one is looking at here, isn't it?
@83 brian.. it is the court of public opinion, brought to us via the western msm... guess who is winning? msm with ignoramus's in tow, or not? - i agree with your comments @85.. no evidence whatsoever, but that doesn't stop the russian smearing, which may be the main motive here on the part of the uk..
@84 piotr.. i agree - planted and long after the fact..
@87 jen.. that is what i got from someone sharing a russian story via translation - which i shared @42..
from my link at 42 which is a translation from a russian news outlet.. see the link @42 for more.."According to official data, Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov flew on March 2, 2018 from Sheremetyevo to London Gatwick Airport. According to Fontanka, 150 passengers were registered for the flight of Aeroflot SU2588.
The suspects bought tickets on foreign passports of the "65" series, the document numbers differ by the last digit: ... 1297 and ... 1294.
Apparently, in the hands of Boshirov and Petrov already had return tickets, and for two consecutive flights from Heathrow to Sheremetyevo - evening on March 4 and night 5-th. The British authorities believe that the suspects used the first.
There are almost no open sources of information about Boshirov. According to the "Fontanka", he was born on April 12, 1978 in Dushanbe, was registered in Moscow in a 25-storey house on Bolshaya Naberezhnaya street.
In 2015, he was brought into two executive proceedings for automobile fines received with a difference of three days, on July 20 and 23. The oddity is that the production numbers are not in order. The first assigned 433048, the second - 432322, although they were issued by one unit - the interdistrict department of bailiffs to collect administrative fines number 1 in Moscow. On the portal of the magistrates of the capital there are no cases of administrative violations against Ruslan Boshirov. Also it is not in the database of executive production.
"Fontanka" phoned long-term residents of the "Boshiro" house on the Great Embankment. They live on the same stairwell. "In the apartment you named, only an elderly woman lives," the correspondent replied. "We carry her money, she collects for cleaning the cleaner." A man was never seen in the apartment and was not seen at the entrance. We can only assume that this is the son of the hostess, who is registered at the address, but who has never lived here. "
Boshirov's network activity is no different either. The pages created under this name and last name in 2014 are empty. On Facebook, Boshirova has one friend registered, a girl from Ukraine. The profile "VKontakte" contains information that Boshirov graduated in 2004 from the geography department of Moscow State University in the direction "Hydrology of the land".
The shoulder bags held by the two "suspects", as seen in the CCTV stills from the two airports, are not seen in the Salisbury CCTV footage from the Sunday. Instead, in Salisbury, the suspect in the black jacket wears a light-coloured backpack on arrival at the train station, and the suspect in the blue jacket wears what appears to be that same backpack in the stills from an hour later as they return to the Salisbury train station. Presumably the backpack carried the applicator and then was later ditched.... but looking at the applicator itself it is hard to fathom how it would not leak, either in flight or in the backpack, even inside its alleged box. The Met police report claims that the bottle allegedly discovered later "contained a significant amount of Novichok."blues , Sep 5, 2018 9:53:01 PM | linkOn the Sunday morning in question, the suspects allegedly walked directly to the Skripal household from the train station (approximately 25 minutes), poisoned the Skripal door within minutes of arrival, then immediately returned to the train station. This operation was allegedly facilitated by a 90 minute "reconnaissance" mission the previous day, although there are no CCTV images from this mission. Why and how the men knew they would not be seen at the doorway on Sunday is not explained.
According to the Met Police report, swabs at the suspect's hotel room were done on May 4. Porton Down alone confirmed the presence of Novichok from these swabs. The Met report adds: "Two swabs showed contamination of Novichok at levels below that which would cause concern for public health." ???? As far as I am aware, that Russian suspects may have flown in and out of Britain on that weekend has been discussed since March, but a positive ID of "Novichok" in a suspect's London hotel room is new information - strangely never referred to before. The otherwise entirely circumstantial case depends on the presence of the chemical in the hotel room, as there is otherwise no direct connection of these men to "Novichuk", perfume bottles, or the Skripal house (the CCTV footage can only place them in the "vicinity").
This case retains its improvised nature. Something seems to have been botched somewhere in the original March events, and the proclamation of Russian guilt was announced too soon and too unequivocally to back down from. The Novichok in the perfume bottle and now the two alleged suspects with the alleged trace Novichok in the hotel room appear to be semi-clumsy additions to the evidence designed to buttress the faulty story after the fact.
This is simply another fine example of the Theory of Tells. The Dark Agents NEVER allow the strange evidence that they release to the public to be totally coherent or rational. They always insert impossible artifacts. If the narratives they create were reasonably coherent, they would never have the proper effect of causing profound cognitive dissonance in the mind of the public, they could therefor never achieve the necessary degree of fear, uncertainty and doubt.Burt , Sep 5, 2018 10:24:20 PM | linkThat would invite people to ask pertinent questions. There must always be a few strategic red herrings. So they always leave strategic tells.
They are different photographs a few seconds apart as can be seen by the figures at the very back of the jetway who move a tiny bit closer to the camera after the first suspect passes.Circe , Sep 5, 2018 10:43:32 PM | linkHowever, the timestamps are then fake and represent a mistake on the part of the person *creating* the evidence. He fucked up and put the same stamp on both pictures.
These pictures were taken a short time apart, but not at the time stamped... i.e. boarding a different flight. A different flight. The timeline is hokum . They did not fly in and out at the times stated or on the flights stated.
It is even conceivable that the person cooking the books wanted to include something that would show it was hokum, that he or she wasn't completely on board. I wonder who it was?
@81TheBAG , Sep 5, 2018 10:52:08 PM | linkThe doors that have those "Do not enter" symbols facing us or the greeting area are open in b's pictures because the individuals have just passed thru them. Therefore you only faintly see the grey back of the symbols.
Also, note how in one Google photo the steel guardrails are on paneling right beside the security signs while in the other Google photos it shows the guardrail separated from the security signs with an empty panel except for the corridor furthest to the right. So the correct photo is the former one and the individuals went through two exactly similar side-by-side corridors simultaneously, which means the photos might be legit. Also, there are at least two or more cameras on the ceiling facing corridors which explains the different angles. It looks like photos are authentic.
Dr. Wellington Yueh @88Circe , Sep 5, 2018 10:55:10 PM | linkGreat observation! Lot of stuff going on in Idlib being reported in Al Masdar News...
@86 Well that explains why in one photo there's an extra glass panel and in the other the panel with the guardrail is beside the panel with the security signs! There are two sets of corridors in the airport.Phillip O'Reilly , Sep 5, 2018 11:28:16 PM | linkThe photos in the article are Therefore most likely authentic.
The key proposition that the police are asserting is that the Skripals were poisoned by 'delayed reaction'. The alleged suspects were out of Salisbury 3 hours before the Skripals exhibited signs of poisoning, nerve agents, however, act immediately. If the 'door handle theory' is not physically possible, which it is not, then that leaves out the assassin hypothesis. Most likely, as I have always said, is that this is about Sergei's skulduggery, he took delivery of the agent from these guys for eventual passing over to the White Helmets via their MI6 handlers. All went pear shaped because of a leaky bottle. Sergei realised something was wrong so hurried his meal so he could check it out, reached the park bench with Julia and the saw that the bottle was leaking and began to feel ill, Julia through the thing away and went down herself.Phillip O'Reilly , Sep 5, 2018 11:56:02 PM | linkInteresting that Theresa May brought up and then dismissed the possibility of a rogue operation. This tells me she is determined to pin the blame on Putin no matter what. I am sure that the smarter elements of British security have a pretty good idea of what has occurred. They will say nothing and they would be quite happy to keep Theresa Mays narrative out in the public domain. Cooperation from Sergei is guaranteed, he has been caught once again in a betrayal, as he always does because he is one of lifes losers.
- Predictions 1 these guys have a connection to Julia's boyfriend.
- Prediction 2 the 'Novichok' is decades old material obtained from the black market and related to the black market material used in a previous Russian assassination. The agent would be largely degraded to a less toxic degradation product, that doesn't matter as its purpose, I believe, is for propaganda not killing. Amateur hour handling with these ridiculously inappropriate and unsafe containers says a lot.
|
|
|
Sep 06, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org
British Assassination Campaign Targeting Russian Exiles?
Over the past decade or so, a disturbing number of Russian nationals living in Britain have met untimely deaths. The victims – at least 14 – have been high-profile individuals, such as oligarch businessman Boris Berezovsky or former Kremlin security agent Alexander Litvinenko. All were living in Britain as exiles, and all were viewed as opponents of President Vladimir Putin's government.
Invariably, British politicians and news media refer to the deaths of Russian émigrés as "proof" of Russian state "malign activity". Putin in particular is accused of ordering "the hits" as some kind of vendetta against critics and traitors.
The claims of Russian state skulduggery have been reported over and over without question in the British media as well as US media. It has become an article-of-faith espoused by British and American politicians alike. "Putin is a killer," they say with seeming certainty. There is simply no question about it in their assertions.
The claims have also been given a quasi-legal veracity, with a British government-appointed inquiry in the case of Alexander Litvinenko making a conclusion that his death in 2006 was "highly likely" the result of a Kremlin plot to assassinate. Putin was personally implicated in the death of Litvinenko by the official British inquiry. The victim was said to have been poisoned with radioactive polonium. Deathbed images of a bald-headed Litvinenko conjure up a haunting image of alleged Kremlin evil-doing.
Once the notion of Russian evil-doing is inculcated the public mind, then subsequent events can be easily invoked as "more proof" of what has already been "established". Namely, so it goes, that the Russian state is carrying out assassinations on British territory.
Thus, we see this "corroborating" effect with the alleged poisoning of a former Russian double-agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in Salisbury back in March this year.
What actually happened to the Skripals is not known – who are said to have since recovered their health, but their whereabouts have not been disclosed by the British authorities. Nevertheless, as soon as the incident of their apparent poisoning occurred, it was easy for the British authorities and media to whip up accusations against Russia as being behind "another assassination attempt" owing to the past "established template" of other Russian émigrés seeming to have been killed by Kremlin agents.
For its part, the Russian government has always categorically denied any involvement in the ill-fate of nationals living in exile in Britain. On the Skripal case, Moscow has pointed out that the British authorities have not produced any independently verifiable evidence against the Kremlin. Russian requests for access to the investigation file have been rejected by the British.
On the Litvinenko case, Russia has said that the official British inquiry was conducted without due process of transparency, or Russia being allowed to defend itself. It was more trial by media.
A common denominator is that the British have operated on a presumption of guilt. The "proof" is largely at the level of allegation or innuendo of Russian malfeasance.
But let's turn the premise of the argument around. What if the British state were the ones conducting a campaign of assassination against Russian émigrés, with the cold-blooded objective of using those deaths as a propaganda campaign to blacken and criminalize Russia?
In a recent British media interview Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was typically harangued over alleged Russian malign activity in Britain. Lavrov rightly turned the question around, and said that the Russian authorities are the ones who are entitled to demand an explanation from the British state on why so many of its nationals have met untimely deaths.
The presumption of guilt against Russia is based on a premise of Russophobia, which prevents an open-minded inquiry. If an open mind is permitted, then surely a more pertinent position is to ask the British authorities to explain the high number of deaths in their jurisdiction.
As ever, the litmus-test question is: who gains from the deaths? In the case of the alleged attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, would Russia risk such a bizarre plot against an exile who had been living in Britain undisturbed for 10 years? Or would Britain gain much more from smearing Moscow at the time of President Putin's re-election in March, and in the run-up to the World Cup?
The more recent alleged nerve-agent poisoning of two British citizens – Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess – in the southern English town of Amesbury revived official anti-Russia accusations and public fears over the earlier Skripal incident in nearby Salisbury.
The Amesbury incident in early July occurred just as a successful World Cup tournament in Russia was underway. It also came ahead of US President Donald Trump's landmark summit with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.
Again, who stands to gain most from these provocative events? Russia or Britain?
Another revealing twist in the presumed narrative of "Kremlin criminality" came from a recent interview given to Russian news media by the daughter of the deceased oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Of course, her side of the story received no coverage in the British media.
Liza Berezovsky believes that her father's death in 2013, while living in exile in Britain, was the dirty work of British state assassins. The case has added importance because it links directly to the previous death of Alexander Litvinenko, who was also living as an exile in Britain.
Berezovsky's daughter believes that her father wanted to return from Britain to Russia so that he could live out his old age in his native country. She claims that the oligarch had vital information on how the death of Litvinenko in 2006, reportedly from radioactive polonium poisoning, had actually been staged as a smear against Putin and the Kremlin.
Boris Berezovsky, his daughter claims, played a key role along with the British state in orchestrating the demise of Litvinenko to look like an assassination plot carried out by the Kremlin. It was Berezovsky who apparently suggested that Litvinenko, with whom he was an associate, shave off his hair in order to drum up the suspicion of Kremlin poisoning.
Liza Berezovsky contends that, seven years after Litvinenko died, her father was preparing to divulge the dirty tricks involving the British state and their anti-Russian campaign. She said the oligarch wanted to atone for his past misdeeds and to make his peace with Mother Russia. She believes that British state agents got wind of his plans to come clean, which would have caused them an acute international scandal.
In March 2013, just days before he was due to depart from Britain, the oligarch was found dead in his mansion near Ascot, in the English countryside, apparently from suicide caused by a ligature around his neck.
In the end, however, a British civil coroner did not conclude suicide, and left an "open verdict" on the death. An eminent German pathologist hired by Liza Berezovsky provided post-mortem evidence that her father's body showed signs of his death having not been self-inflicted. He was, in their view, murdered.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that British secret services are running an assassination program on Russian exiles. These exiles are often used for a time by the British state as media assets, presented as high-profile critics of the Kremlin and lending testimonies to much-publicized allegations of "authoritarianism" and "human rights abuses" under Putin.
At some opportune later time, these Russian dissidents can be liquidated by British agents. Their deaths are then presented as "more proof" of Russian malign activity and in particular for the purpose of criminalizing President Putin and his government.
Considering how London has become an international haven for Russian oligarchs whose wealth is often tainted as being proceeds from criminal activity against Russian laws and who therefore are easily framed as Putin opponents – the British state has ample opportunities for setting up "assassinations" and anti-Putin provocations.
Such a nefarious British program is by no means unprecedented. During the 30-year armed conflict in Northern Ireland ending in the late 1990s, it is documented that the British state ran clandestine assassination campaigns against Irish republican figures, as well as ordinary citizens, as a coldly calculated political instrument of state-sponsored terrorism. It was an instrument honed by the British from other colonial-era conflicts, such as in Kenya, Myanmar (formerly Burma), Malaysia (formerly Malaya), and in several Arab countries like Bahrain and Yemen, as detailed by British historian Mark Curtis in his book Web of Deceit.
Adapting such heinous techniques for a contemporary propaganda war against Russia wouldn't cost any qualms to British state grandees and their agents. Indeed, for them, it would be simply Machiavellian business-as-usual.
Tags: Skripal case
|
|
|
Sep 06, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca
The time that "Boshirov and Petrov" were allegedly in Salisbury carrying out the attack is all entirely within the period the Skripals were universally reported to have left their home with their mobile phones switched off.
A key hole in the British government's account of the Salisbury poisonings has been plugged – the lack of any actual suspects. And it has been plugged in a way that appears broadly convincing – these two men do appear to have traveled to Salisbury at the right time to have been involved.
But what has not been established is the men's identity and that they are agents of the Russian state, or just what they did in Salisbury. If they are Russian agents, they are remarkably amateur assassins. Meanwhile the new evidence throws the previously reported timelines into confusion – and demolishes the theories put out by "experts" as to why the Novichok dose was not fatal.
This BBC report gives a very useful timeline summary of events.
At 09.15 on Sunday 4 March the Skripals' car was seen on CCTV driving through three different locations in Salisbury. Both Skripals had switched off their mobile phones and they remained off for over four hours, which has baffled geo-location.
There is no CCTV footage that indicates the Skripals returning to their home. It has therefore always been assumed that they last touched the door handle around 9am.
But the Metropolitan Police state that Boshirov and Petrov did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the poisoning. That means that they could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals' doorknob before noon at the earliest.
But there has never been any indication that the Skripals returned to their home after noon on Sunday 4 March. If they did so, they and/or their car somehow avoided all CCTV cameras. Remember they were caught by three CCTV cameras on leaving, and Borishov and Petrov were caught frequently on CCTV on arriving.
The Skripals were next seen on CCTV at 13.30, driving down Devizes road. After that their movements were clearly witnessed or recorded until their admission to hospital.
So even if the Skripals made an "invisible" trip home before being seen on Devizes Road, that means the very latest they could have touched the doorknob is 13.15. The longest possible gap between the novichok being placed on the doorknob and the Skripals touching it would have been one hour and 15 minutes. Do you recall all those "experts" leaping in to tell us that the "ten times deadlier than VX" nerve agent was not fatal because it had degraded overnight on the doorknob? Well that cannot be true. The time between application and contact was between a minute and (at most) just over an hour on this new timeline.
In general it is worth observing that the Skripals, and poor Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, all managed to achieve almost complete CCTV invisibility in their widespread movements around Salisbury at the key times, while in contrast "Petrov and Boshirov" managed to be frequently caught in high quality all the time during their brief visit.
This is especially remarkable in the case of the Skripals' location around noon on 4 March. The government can only maintain that they returned home at this time, as they insist they got the nerve agent from the doorknob. But why was their car so frequently caught on CCTV leaving, but not at all returning? It appears very much more probable that they came into contact with the nerve agent somewhere else, while they were out.
"Boshirov and Petrov" plainly are of interest in this case. But only Theresa May stated they were Russian agents: the police did not, and stated that they expected those were not their real identities. We do not know who Boshirov and Petrov were. It appears very likely their appearance was to do with the Skripals on that day. But they may have been meeting them, outside the home. The evidence points to that, rather than doorknobs. Such a meeting might explain why the Skripals had turned off their mobile phones to attempt to avoid surveillance.
It is also telling the police have pressed no charges against them in the case of Dawn Sturgess, which would be manslaughter at least if the government version is true.
If "Boshirov and Petrov" are secret agents, their incompetence is astounding. They used public transport rather than a vehicle and left the clearest possible CCTV footprint. They failed in their assassination attempt. They left traces of novichok everywhere and could well have poisoned themselves, and left the "murder weapon" lying around to be found. Their timings in Salisbury were extremely tight – and British Sunday rail service dependent.
There are other possibilities of who "Boshirov and Petrov" really are, of which Ukrainian is the obvious one. One thing I discovered when British Ambassador to Uzbekistan was that there had been a large Ukrainian ethnic group of scientists working at the Soviet chemical weapon testing facility there at Nukus. There are many other possibilities.
Yesterday's revelations certainly add to the amount we know about the Skripal event. But they raise as many new questions as they give answers.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2018 | www.sott.net
By now anyone with an opinion on the Skripal poisoning has already decided if they believe the official narrative or not. Still, the event and the ongoing media coverage around it presents an opportunity to understand more than we might think.
The British government claim is that a "military-grade nerve agent", one of a group of nerve agents supposedly called 'novichok' (which simply means 'newcomer'), was used by Russia on Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury. They reach the conclusion that Russia is to blame because, they claim, the nerve agent used is "of a type developed by Russia."
Russian daily newspaper Kommersant recently released a 6-page document they claim constitutes the British government's official case against Russia. They summed up the 'evidence' as follows:
Military-grade Novichok nerve agent positively identified at the UK's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, an OPCW-accredited and designated laboratory Novichok is a group of agents developed only by Russia and not declared under the CWC A violation of the fundamental prohibition on the use of chemical weapons (Art. 1 CWC) First offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War We are without doubt that Russia is responsible. No country bar Russia has combined capability, intent and motive. There is no plausible alternative explanation As of Sunday 18 March, we count over thirty parallel lines of Russian disinformationNote the 2nd point, that " Novichok is a group of agents developed only by Russia and not declared under the CWC ."In 2016, Iranian scientists synthesized five 'Novichok' agents and the data was added to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons' Central Analytical Database (OCAD).
In an interview with AFP, the former Russian scientist who participated in the development of "Novichok" in Russia in the 70s and 80s, Vil Mirzayanov, stated that if Russia was not responsible for the poisoning:
"The only other possibility would be that someone used the formulas in my book to make such a weapon.Mirzayanov's book, published in 2008 , contains the formulas he alleges can be used to create "Novichoks". In 1995, he explained that "the chemical components or precursors" of Novichok are "ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides."So the British government claim that this type of nerve agent can only be Russian, and was only developed by Russia, is demonstrably false. In fact, in her statement to the House of Commons on 12th March 2018 , British Prime Minister Theresa May contradicted that claim when she said:
"It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. This is part of a group of nerve agents known as 'Novichok' . Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down. "In the world of nerve agents, in order to positively identify a sample, you must have your own sample for comparison and positive identification.In a judgement at the British High Court on 22nd March on whether to allow blood samples to be taken from Sergei and Yulia Skripal for examination by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), evidence submitted by the Porton Down laboratory to the court (Section 17 i) stated:
"Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound . The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent. "Again, Porton Down must have had a sample of the alleged nerve agent used to poison Skripal and his daughter. That can mean only one of two things: that Porton Down obtained the nerve agent from some other party, or manufactured it on site . Porton Down is, after all, in the business of producing chemical weapons (ostensibly to test them on anti-chemical weapon equipment).Note also that the wording used in the quote above includes the possibility that the agent used on Skripal was not even 'Novichok' but rather a "related compound" or something "closely related." So even Theresa May's statement that the British MoD had "positively identified" 'Novichok' seems false.
In an interview with German Deutsch Welle , bumbling UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was directly asked if scientists at Porton Down had samples of 'Novichok', to which he replied:
" They do . And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, 'Are you sure?' And he said there's no doubt."So the only thing we can presume to be 100% certain of in the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter is that the nerve agent used was in stock at Porton Down, 8 miles from the site of the poisoning.In the 5th point in the British government 6-page 'dossier', the British establishment claims:
"We are without doubt that Russia is responsible. No country bar Russia has combined capability, intent and motive. There is no plausible alternative."We know that other countries have the capability. Claiming to have no doubt about someone's intent is nonsense. So we're left with motive. Did Russia have a motive to poison Skripal and his daughter? Motives for a course of action are intrinsically linked to the result of the action. The obvious and predictable result of using a nerve agent that was originally developed in Russia in the 1970s to poison a former Russian spy living in the UK and working for British intelligence is that Russia would be blamed and universally condemned for it. So if Russia was motivated to further downgrade its reputation on the international stage, then sure, Russia had motivation to poison Skripal and his daughter.The problem is that there is no evidence that Russia desires to damage its own reputation in this way. Is there evidence that anyone else has such motivation? For those that have been paying attention to world affairs over the past 6 or 7 years, I'll presume that you don't need me to answer that one.
So when we remove the unfounded and contradictory claims around the Skripal poisoning, the actual facts of the case are rather limited:
Skripal lived in Salisbury, England, and had been working for MI5 for 8 years. It is reasonable to assume that he may, therefore, have had access to sensitive material, possibly useful to foreign governments, including Russia. As such, he may have posed an 'intelligence threat' if he returned to Russia. According to a close friend , Skripal had recently decided that he wanted to go back to live in Russia and petitioned the Russian government to that end. Not long thereafter, Skripal was poisoned with a substance that was in stock at a British Ministry of Defense facility, 8 miles from where he was living. The British government blamed Russia for his poisoning. This accusation must be seen in the context of a years-long anglo-American black propaganda campaign designed to marginalize Russia and thereby limit its ability to effectively assert itself as a globally influential player. I've heard people make the argument that any investigations of what really happened in Salisbury can only ever be guesswork, that we can never be 100% sure. Of course, that's true to a degree, especially when dealing with evidence which may be held back from public disclosure because of reasons of "national security". But such people tend to use this line of thinking simply to avoid taking a position, because taking a position scares some people, especially if it is not the official position. It's also not very realistic or practical. If we were to hold all statements and claims to the same level of proof, our court systems would become obsolete. Rarely is there enough evidence to find a criminal guilty with a 100% degree of certainty. That's why courts hold the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and allow for circumstantial evidence.Insistence on absolute proof fails to recognize that, as humans, we don't navigate our lives and make decisions on the basis of 100% proof. Instead, we use something akin to 'past form'. For example, if I intend to take the train at 9.15am from platform 1 in the morning, I cannot be 100% certain that the train will be there at 9.15am, or that it will be there at all that day. Instead, I actively assume that it will be there based on the circumstantial evidence I have accrued through repeated observations that when I go there at that time the train is there. You could even say that the train is very likely to be there because it has the means, motive and opportunity.
That's how we go about our daily lives, at least. But in cases of guilt and innocence we probably need a higher standard. Many suspects may have means, motive and opportunity at the same time. That doesn't mean they're all guilty. And a history of similar crimes does not necessarily mean that a suspect is guilty of one particular crime. So what to do in a case like the Skripal poisoning? The only thing we can do is compare competing hypotheses and the degrees to which they are consistent with all the facts available. In other words, which scenario is more likely given the known facts?
In answering the question of who poisoned Sergei Skripal and his daughter, we lack 100% proof that the British government (or some element thereof) was responsible for the attack, just as we lack 100% proof that the Russian government was responsible. In fact, the evidence and reasoning provided by the British government does not actually support the Russian hypothesis over competing hypotheses, because we would see the same evidence if the attack were carried out in order to frame Russia. If evidence applies equally to two or more competing hypotheses, naturally that evidence cannot be used to support one hypothesis over the other, which is precisely what the British government is doing.
In contrast, the British government's apparent access to the precise nerve agents in question, close to where Skripal lives, their full access to Skripal himself, their past form in fabricating evidence of chemical weapons usage by other states, and their clear intent to wage a vicious and underhanded demonization campaign against Russia, all combine to allow us to actively assume that the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter was the work of the British government itself. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Perhaps not, but it is currently the only hypothesis that makes sense given the evidence available. And until more evidence is made available, it is the only reasonable conclusion to make.
Joe Quinn is the co-author of 9/11: The Ultimate Truth (with Laura Knight-Jadczyk, 2006) and Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False Flag Terror Attacks (with Niall Bradley, 2014), and the host of Sott.net's The Sott Report Videos and co-host of the 'Behind the Headlines' radio show on the Sott Radio Network .
An established web-based essayist and print author, Quinn has been writing incisive editorials for Sott.net for over 10 years. His articles have appeared on many alternative news sites and he has been interviewed on several internet radio shows and has also appeared on Iranian Press TV . His articles can also be found on his personal blog JoeQuinn.net .
BlackCartouche · 5 months ago
"By now anyone with an opinion on the Skripal poisoning has already decided if they believe the official narrative or not."HashAttack2 · 5 months agoLol. Is there anyone on SOTT who believes the official narrative?
BlackCartouche Believes?BlackCartouche · 5 months agoIt's hard to even decipher the official narrative, it's an incoherent mess, lacking any motive, lacking any factual content.
Where we have facts, e.g. 3 actual admissions to hospital and compare with the narrative, 130 lives threatened, it's makes May's announcements appear total nonsense
It's all very well western MSM and governments asking us to believe their narratives but their story lines never make sense ... they just lack logical consistency and tend to have glaring plot holes .... it's all hypocritical BS
HashAttack2 Apparently Novichok is at least several times deadlier than the very deadly VX nerve agent.parallax · 5 months agoWhy isn't anyone dead?
HashAttack2 · 5 months agoLol. Is there anyone on SOTT who believes the official narrative?I've been knitting a sweater waiting for some really good 'official' evidence; I'm about to start in on a new one and perhaps a blanket after that.The thing about official narratives is that they try to appeal to the 'plausible lie' (repeated often enough on the news - and nothing new here to SOTT readers), and in a court of law (or world opinion) this type of lie, as we know, can do the trick in peoples heads. Double-down on it all with rolled out authoritarians and the MSN public can be like putty - moldable.
Thanks for writing such a good article - nice work!
parallax Can you knit me one too ... plenty of time before any evidence turns upJoan · 5 months agoThis whole episode disgusts me, and that is what is, an episode, in the pathological drama that is enfolding in the world today.system · 5 months agoIt has no bearing or relevance to what is occurring in the real world, it's a staged political act.
These so called politicians in the west are so inept, they are no longer able to judge or respond to the will of the people, for which they have been elected I might add, they resort to extraordinary measures to keep the electorate on side.
Unfortunately, it seems to be missing the mark, evidence all the mass unrest in the US, UK and Europe.
The so called Austerity measures have done nothing more than to create more chaos on an already chaotic situation, fueled by emotional fervor.
And of course, we have the MSM fueling the fire. At one time it was described as the 5 th Estate, No longer, it is a collaborator and cooperator in the message that the political elite want to send to the masses.
Well it's a free choice one can believe the evidence that is presented from whatever news source one wants to watch, read or listen to. Personally I think there should be a warning message, like on food labels, that if one listens, watches or reads the MSM, it is a case of buyer beware, in the case of MSM, it is a case of your mind beware, and that is the most important thing as far as I am concerned, ones own personal integrity is not compromised, the ability to discern truth from lies.
Joan ''...These so called politicians in the west are so inept,...''Chase · 5 months agoThe politicians are not the ones running the show. Big money is. Really big money. Consortiums of major banks and oil companies for example. The Rockerfeller family is another one. I forgot the number but I do remember their fortune is unbelievably colossal. They are in everything. Just a handful of people are running the show from behind the scene. Surely you know that.
Nobody elected the current British pm.Joan · 5 months agodemore Yes I do know that. And what we are witnessing is a show for public consumptionXerox · 5 months agoIt has no relation to what is happening in th real world. Business with Russia continues, although they may have to jump more hurdles, the space station continues, banking and finance continues. trade continues, cultural exchanges continues.
So this is a purely a staged political event to sway the peoples to back a pathological ideology.
They live in a bubble of there own reality and unfortunately they are trying to get people to pierce the bubble and enter that reality.
Will they succeed, lord I hope not.
Consider for example this picture which shows Mr. Skripal and his daughter Yulia presumably in the pub or the restaurant they visited before they collapsed. Who is the third person, visible in the mirror between them, who took the picture?George L · 5 months agoIs this third person the MI6 agent Pablo Miller who in 1995 recruited Skripal as British double agent. Miller who was also involved in handling the MI6 assets Boris Berezovski and Alexander Litvinenko. Pablo Miller who lives close to Sergej Skripal in Salisbury and is considered to be his friend? The same Pablo Miller who worked with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence which created the 'dirty dossier' about Donald Trump? How deep were the Skripals involved in making up the fake stories in the anti-Trump dossier for which the Clinton campaign paid more than $168,000 dollars. Did the Skripals threaten to talk about the issue? Is that why the incident happened?
Without going too far into the gymnastics of the Skripals' poisoning, it is quite probable Theresa May may have known there was going to be a poisoning of the Skripals, before the actual poisoning took place. Check the timings of the released 'certainty' data.locust · 5 months agoHer unprotected visit to the sites should also be a clear indication of 'something'.
What is the name of the 'containing' hospitals, and where is it located?
Isn't this scenario following a distinct parallel path to Iraq's WMD, starting with the very similar vial, and posture?
Shalom
i see no evidence that there even were victims. Therefore, I assume that the whole thing is fake.Ned Ludd · 5 months agoI appreciate the good analysis that Joe here and others elsewhere have done to lay bare the dishonesty and fraud of this staged incident. However, after so many such faked affairs I think another response is necessary.Illusionoffreedom · 5 months ago1. The First Response by Russia and others should be to flatly and bluntly say it is a bunch of lying shit. By this I mean that Russia et al should stop being so damned reasonable. That this sort of stuff should be flung back at the accusers with defiance.
2. Russia et al should inflict immediate and painful measure on the perpetrators. Hit them hard where it counts. Seize assets, arrest nationals, attack economically, impose sanctions. Make it clear that whatever they do to Russia can be taken in stride. But the west is fragile and weak and greedy and so not able to receive return blows. Do this with an air of 'we can take it, we will dish it out, you can't hadle it'.
3. Split the Europeans. Pitch soft to some countries like Italy but pound others like the UK. They are weak, they will fold.
4. Announce bold new military undertakings. Up the building of weapon systems. Increase the reserves, deployment. Make it very clear there will be a price and Russia is prepared to inflict serious pain.
5. Continue to buddy up to China. Dramatically increase economic protection measure. Prepare to attack and undermine western currencies and markets.
The bragging and posturing of the west is a gambler's last throw. They cannot maintain by force or any other means cohesion. Faced with painful resistance parts of the regime will grow fearful and capitulate. Make for civil war. Let them destroy themselves. This is the cheapest and safest way to put the lot out of business.
But, China, Russia and honest people in the west need to show some teeth to set this in motion.
Yeah Ned, but I think that's exactly what they want Russia to do, and they ain't playing that game. it must be maddening to them to poke and prod them and they are, like you say, so damn reasonable,Rebel · 5 months agoDid anyone miss this!?:Rowan Cocoan · 5 months agoSo where is the 'Novichok' talk coming from? Well, someone in the British government propaganda staff watched the current seasons of the British-American spy drama Strike Back. (reverse causality IMO - it was planned, possibly predictive programming and conditioning)
Nina Byzantina points to the summaries of recent episodes:Episode 50 ran in the U.K on November 21 2017 and in the U.S. on February 23 2018:
Meanwhile, General Lázsló shuts down Section 20, forcing Donovan to work in secret. She discovers that Zaryn is in fact Karim Markov, a Russian scientist who allegedly killed his colleagues with Novichok, a nerve agent they invented.
Episodes 51 ran in the U.K on November 28 2017 and in the U.S. on March 2 2018:
Section 20 track Berisovich's meth lab in Turov where Markov is making more Novichok and destroy it, though Berisovich escapes with Markov.
Episodes 52 ran in the U.K on January 31 2018 and in the U.S. on March 9 2018:
Section 20 track down Maya, a local Muslim woman Lowry radicalised, to a local airport. When she attempts to release the Novichok, Reynolds shoots her. The Novichok is fake however, as Berisovich does not want an attack committed in his country. ... By the time Section 20 arrives, Berisovich had already called in the FSB to extract Markov and confiscate the Novichok. Yuri resurfaces to kill McAllister and Wyatt. However they turn the tables and strangle him to death. They then manage to engage the FSB and contain the gas. But in the process Reynolds is exposed. Markov works on an antidote but is killed by the Russians before he can complete. McAllister improvises and saves Reynolds, before Novin blows up the lab. Lowry uses the remainder of the gas to kill Berisovich for trying to betray her.
Here is a clip from the series: [ Link ]
See article here: [ Link ]Rebel Excellent point, and, IMHO, likely true.Ryan · 5 months agoSadly, however, facts and logic are not being used by the masses here as the proles have been sufficiently programmed, that they will 'knee jerk' without analysis, without open minds, and will do what the PTB's MSM tells them to do.
When absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt that the official story of 9/11 came out; to wit: the proof of explosive Alumino Sulfate? Nano sized unexploded particles in the dust of WTC, a friend, newly introduced to the 'bigger truths', asked, 'Well how are they going to explain this away?"
I told him, just like they did in not talking about WTC7. You never knew about it until 2003 when I told you. Same approach here."
Well, assuming your point is true, the more valid it is, the more it will be ignored.
Sad, true. But good thinking!!! Good point!
R.C.
Q.E.D.lysna · 5 months agoGiven that Russia had ample chance to kill Skripal when he was imprisoned there for several years, there's obviously a complete lack of a motive on Russia's part. And further given the abundant means, motive and opportunity of, by, and available to, the British government, it looks beyond reasonable doubt to me.
Nice summation Joe!
They are arising for Easter celebrations...[ Link ]ant22 · 5 months agoThe logic behind the official narrative that Russia did it because Skripal was Russian and 'novichok' was originally developed by Russians is not far off believing that standing in a garage makes you a car. But clearly this is how the UK gov & Co see it.Woodsman · 5 months agoWell, they're not much of 'intellectual Ferraris', are they. More like three-wheel bicycles ridden by a child with special educational needs.
By now anyone with an opinion on the Skripal poisoning has already decided if they believe the official narrative or not. Still, the event and the ongoing media coverage around it presents an opportunity to understand more than we might think.I don't even get eye-rolls these days when I talk with True Believers.I've been noticing that the tactic now employed most often, (other than simply avoiding eye contact and scurrying away), is to interrupt, be louder, to spin anxious, meandering and waaaaay-off point diatribes which go on for many minutes at a time without letup, repeatedly referencing totems and touchstones like, "Scientific peer review is the only thing separating us from chaos!" -and canned talking points which may or may not have any bearing on the subject.
... ... ...
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk
fredi , August 28, 2018 at 16:46
The 10 Main Holes in the Official Narrative on the Salisbury Poisonings: #1 – The Motive
When I began writing about the Skripal case, I was moved to do so by three main considerations.
Firstly, I really am passionate for the truth, and whatever the truth happens to be in this case, I strongly desire it to be made manifest. It was clear to me fairly early on that this was not happening.
Secondly, I am also very passionate about concepts such as the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, and the apparently quaint notion that investigations should precede verdicts, rather than the other way around. And so when I saw accusations being made before the investigation had hardly begun, verdicts being reached before the facts were established, I was appalled -- appalled that this was happening in what we British pride ourselves is the Mother of Parliaments, and equally appalled that this meant the investigation was inevitably prejudiced and – pardon the expression – poisoned from the off.
Thirdly, the incident happened to have taken place pretty much on my doorstep, which made it of even more interest to me.
Nothing I have seen in the intervening time has persuaded me that my initial impressions were wrong. In fact, the whiff of rodent I first detected has only become stronger as time has gone on and the case has become -- frankly -- farcical.
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2018 | www.theblogmire.com
When I began writing about the Skripal case, I was moved to do so by three main considerations.
- Firstly, I really am passionate for the truth, and whatever the truth happens to be in this case, I strongly desire it to be made manifest. It was clear to me fairly early on that this was not happening.
- Secondly, I am also very passionate about concepts such as the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, and the apparently quaint notion that investigations should precede verdicts, rather than the other way around. And so when I saw accusations being made before the investigation had hardly begun, verdicts being reached before the facts were established, I was appalled -- appalled that this was happening in what we British pride ourselves is the Mother of Parliaments, and equally appalled that this meant the investigation was inevitably prejudiced and – pardon the expression – poisoned from the off.
- Thirdly, the incident happened to have taken place pretty much on my doorstep, which made it of even more interest to me.
Nothing I have seen in the intervening time has persuaded me that my initial impressions were wrong. In fact, the whiff of rodent I first detected has only become stronger as time has gone on and the case has become -- frankly -- farcical. Not only that, but the reaction to the case has been simply incredible. For instance, the United States expelled 60 diplomats back in March, and more recently they have effectively declared economic war on the Russian Federation – all in response to unproven and inconsistent assertions of a botched assassination attempt against an old spy in a quiet Wiltshire City. Such a response ought to raise the suspicions of any sentient being that all is not what it appears.
I still do not have any clear idea of what happened on that day, but what I am certain of is that the official narrative is not only untrue, but it is manifestly inconceivable that it could be true. There are simply too many inconsistencies, too many holes and far too many unexplained events for it to be true. And whilst part of me would dearly love to leave this wretched case behind for a while, whilst it is still ongoing, and especially as it is now being used to push us even closer to the brink of war (economic warfare is often a prelude to military warfare), I find that hard to do.
What I would therefore like to do in a series of 10 short pieces over the next couple of weeks or so, is attempt to expose some of the very many holes in the official narrative. At the end of it, I may well put it all together into one PDF, so that it can be sent somewhere, where it can be completely ignored by those that matter. Enjoy!
Number 1: The MotiveIn her speech to the House of Commons on 26 th March , the Prime Minister, Theresa May, said this:
"In conclusion, as I have set out, no other country has a combination of the capability, the intent and the motive to carry out such an act."
For the purposes of this piece, I am not interested in her comments on capability or intent, but simply what she describes as "the motive".
The first question to be asked is this: What exactly does she mean by "the motive"? By including that definite article before the word "motive", she implies that there is only one "motive" – the motive – and that only one party – the Russian Federation – possessed this. Which is of course manifest nonsense. She might at that stage have said that they possessed "a motive", but without looking into what Mr Skripal was up to, and the contacts he had, she was in no position to state that they had " the motive".
Imagine the following scenario: A farmer called Boggis is found shot dead in his barn. It is known that a week earlier, he had a very public quarrel with another landowner, Bunce, about the boundaries between their lands, and that the two of them had to be separated before they came to blows. Could it be said of Bunce that he had "the motive"? Well, it would be reasonable to suggest that he had "a motive", but without looking into other circumstances and other characters connected with Boggis, it would be disingenuous to claim that he had "the motive" as if only he might have had one.
As it happens, Boggis had been committing adultery with the wife of another neighbouring farmer called Bean, and Bean had found out about this two days before Boggis was found dead. What now? Does Bean have a motive? Very possibly. So too might Boggis' wife. Perhaps even Bunce's wife. Who knows without examining the facts more closely?
And so herein lies the first whiff of rodent. Mrs May asserted that the Russian Federation possessed "the motive", implying that there was only one possibility, which is something that could only be ascertained by proper investigation of Mr Skripal, his circumstances and what he was up to. She therefore committed what is a most basic fallacy in the investigative process.
The second question to ask is this: she says she set out "the motive" in her speech, but what actually was that? Here is what she presented as the motive in her speech:
"We know that Russia has a record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations – and that it views some former intelligence officers as legitimate targets for these assassinations."
This won't do. Firstly, many countries have records of conducting state-sponsored assassinations, and not always against their own nationals. But secondly, the claim that the Russian Federation "views some former intelligence officers as legitimate targets for these assassinations" is not a motive. At best it is a claim, but it is not a motive. A motive for an attempted murder, such as this, would need to give a reason for carrying it out on that particular person at that particular time. Simply saying that they view some former intelligence officers as legitimate targets for these assassinations does not explain why they are supposed to have decided to assassinate this particular man, at this particular time, especially since they released and pardoned him in 2010. It also does not explain why they apparently decided to wreck all possible future spy swaps, since Mr Skripal had been part of such a deal, and assassinating him would put an end to such deals.
But the most important question to ask is this: are there any other parties with a possible motive for this crime? Even without a particularly careful investigation of the details of Mr Skripal's life, contacts and circumstances, I can say assuredly that there were. For instance, it is known -- although woefully unreported because of a media ban -- that Mr Skripal was connected to the man behind the so-called Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele. Personally, I am reasonably convinced that Mr Skripal had a hand in putting this dossier together, given his connections to Steele, and since it was almost certainly authored by a Russian "trained in the KGB tradition" .
Might this give a motive to some very powerful groups who are nervous about the origins and details of this dossier coming to light? Yes, of course. Then why is it not a line of possible enquiry? Answers on a postcard to the Department of the Blindingly Obvious.
In summary:
Mrs May had no right to state that the Russian Federation had "the motive". The best she could have said at that stage, without taking other possibilities into account, was that they had "a motive". The motive she does present is particularly feeble and does not explain why the Russian Federation would have wanted Mr Skripal in particular dead, and at that particular time. Mr Skripal's recent activities indicate that there were others with possible motives to assassinate or incapacitate him. dmonished 2 February 2016 by his FBI handler. This was in vault dump.Fusion GPS only got contract from Hillary April 2016, who then subcontracted to Steele. But Steele was FBI asset prior to dossier being started. Was he an asset or a feeder of MI6 disinformation into US politics/intelligence?
That McCain ended up giving the dossier to Comey, when that dossier was written by a supposed FBI "asset" would indicate the latter. If Sergei was Steele's only "source" obviously his disappearance was essential.
Jo says: August 22, 2018 at 10:12 am
"CC Pritchard said officers at the scene underwent a "decontamination process" at Salisbury District Hospital overnight on Sunday and into Monday morning, after details of the attack became clearer."lissnup says: August 23, 2018 at 8:48 amBut didn't Bailey drive himself in only because he said he didn't feel well sometime on Monday evening?
@Jo. Yes, one version of the story says Bailey and two colleagues were checked out at the hospital and then discharged, but that Bailey drove himself back after feeling unwell and was readmitted.Liane Theuer says: August 21, 2018 at 10:23 amI want to present my own thoughts on party A and B, that some posters here have developed.Peter Beswick says: August 21, 2018 at 9:36 amMy first question is : who is protecting Chris Steele right now ? I think it´s MI6. But I don´t think that they are happy to be forced to do that. Maybe there was an order of UK government to hide Steele. Because he meddled in some other things not related to the Dossier, but to Cambridge Analytica and Brexit and Fifa and .
MI6 has to hide the Skripals, too. The reason is simply to prevent that Steele, Miller and the Skripals will ever be interrogated by the Trump fraction.
The dodgy dossier became a heavy burden on the UK Government since Steele became known as the author. It is an open secret that the UK Government has secretly done everything possible to prevent Trump's presidency. Who knows what else will come to light ?
In another post I had mentioned the role of Alexandra Chalupa and her Ukraine connection. She's an ambassador to the Ukraine for the DNC. Chalupa collected dirt on Paul Manaford for a long time.She emailed DNC that she'll share sensitive info about Paul Manafort "offline" including "a big Trump component that will hit in next few weeks" (which never happened, at least by Alexandra Chalupa). Then her private Yahoo email account was hacked and a few days later DNC fired Chalupa. WHY ? Maybe because DNC needed to keep her activities off-site, where a FOIA can't touch them ?
But what happened on the very day Chalupa is fired ? Oh, Christopher Steele is hired. What a coincidence. And what happens FIVE DAYS after Christopher Steele was hired ? Oh, he publishes his first report on his dossier, a report that discusses FIVE YEARS of investigation.
I mention Chalupa, because I strongly suspect that much of the Trump dossier goes back to Chalupa's research. These, in turn, are based largely on information provided by the Ukrainian intelligence service SBU.
The DNC wanted to use this information against Trump, but they couldn´t use Chalupa as the source. So the idea was born to hire Steele for the job. Outsourcing.
The FBI has probably contacted its loyal vassal MI6 and discreetly referred to "common interests". Steele then changed the dossier to obfuscate Chalupa's authorship. But he made decisive mistakes. One mistake may have been to involve Sergei to some extent.
So I'm assuming that FBI and MI6 have a common interest in preventing Steele, Miller and the Skripals from speaking. Maybe MI6 contacted Sergei some time before and offered him to change his identity. But Sergei refused. However, he was now alarmed and made plans to return to Russia. A dilemma for FBI and MI6. They now had to find another way to prevent Sergei from speaking. The idea of a Russian nerve agent was born. That killed two birds with one stone.
Who executed the plan ?
- FBI alone
- MI6 alone
- FBI and MI6 together
- A third party that was willing to support the plan. This third party could well be from Ukraine. They hate Russia, they feared that their share of the Trump dossier could come to light. Moreover, in the West, they can not distinguish well between Ukrainians and Russians if the perpetrators were unmasked. Moreover, various sources, including the German BND, have pointed out that Ukraine may still have Novichok stocks.
Bailey's job was to shadow the Skripals and report it. But he knew nothing of the plan. I think, the attack itself happened in or around the Mill Pub and Bailey witnessed it. However, I have no idea if the attack was done open or hidden. I guess hidden. Something contaminated was being smuggled into the red bag, perhaps already in the Zizzi, which the Skripals then discovered, wondering how it came in the bag, and what both were touching. Bailey was contaminated later, when he touched the same item (maybe a perfume in gift wrapping) inside the red bag ?
Not just two groupsCascadian says: August 21, 2018 at 7:11 amIn the run up to and including the war of the Iraq II WMD Debacle, Mi6 were fractured, even the bosses Dearlove and Scarlett that were running their own pro Blair operations in conflict with the rest of the service. Dearlove and Scarlett had their own objectives which were not comparable with each other (personal and professional but mainly personal) or the rest of their service.
Mi6, Mi5, DiS (or whatever they are all called now) with GCHQ have their own infighting and conflicts of interest; within themselves, their sister services, commercial / pension interests and those of the government .. And of course what is in the best interest of the nation. (the police forces are inconvenient uneducated, unfocussed rabbles that get in the way if they involve themselves in anything more than issuing speeding fines)
Add to that Ministers fighting each other, Labour MP's trying harder to bring down Corbyn than May, the Israeli and US interests ever present wherever you look.
And top that with the US shambolic lessons to all other developed governments in the world and the examples they display of their own decorum. Clinton v Trump. FBI v CIA. (How many intelligence services are there? How many agendas have they got?) And the Sickly twisted occultist hand the CIA has in global drug production / distribution, unmetered oil windfalls, blackmail scams (honey traps, murder, vice, paedophilia). An organisation with limitless wealth and income streams, zero conscience, morality or single objective other than to control the surf / goyim / proletariat. No objectives other than to invoke misery, pain, suffering and death with crime, wickedness, fear and perpetual global wars so the elite can remain that way and enjoy their rewards.
And we wonder why Salisbury happened, what it is about, who is doing something about it, why are they lying and covering up, who is to blame?
The last question is the easy one to answer.
We are!
The broth in the Amesbury pot is being stirred once again:John Bull says: August 21, 2018 at 8:12 am
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201808211067351473-amesbury-alleged-poisoning-charlie-rowley-hospital/Whoops! I hope they take good care of himlissnup says: August 21, 2018 at 10:55 amSputnik makes an unfortunate choice of words in trying to paraphrase the Guardian article: "The spokesman for Salisbury district hospital, where Charlie Rowley was taken, told The Guardian that *none* of the hospital's patients was receiving any nerve agent-related treatment at the moment."CharlieFreak says: August 21, 2018 at 11:21 amThe Guardian article actually says, "The hospital said it could not speak about individual cases but stressed it was not treating anyone for the effects of novichok poisoning at the moment."
So, nine, not nether.
More interesting is that the truth of the strained relationship between Charlie and his brother is becoming more apparent. A mutual friend told me a few weeks back that Charlie was estranged from his family by choice. Hearing that put a very different perspective on his brother's effusively confusing statements to the press.
Regarding the family relationship, when Charlie was in court for drug dealing last year (?) he was additionally charged with stealing £2,000 (I think that was the amount) from Mr Matthew Rowley. So I too remain to be convinced of the 'brotherly love'.Cascadian says: August 21, 2018 at 12:17 pm" he was additionally charged with stealing £2,000 (I think that was the amount) from Mr Matthew Rowley". That, to me, is a very odd fact. We are told that Charlie is a drug addict on his uppers (i.e. skint), yet he had £2000 that his brother (perhaps with an underlying motive to put Chalie on cold turkey – oh, wait, oink, , flap, , oink, , flap, ) sought to relieve him of responsibility for it.Anonymous-1 says: August 21, 2018 at 5:51 amAs to the mangling of the message mentioned by lissnup, both the Guardian and Sputnik would probably have got the original story from PA, following which they would then have put their own brand of spin on it.
The identity of the Skripals in contained in the witness statements – those who were present at the time and clearly saw them:Miheila says: August 21, 2018 at 6:33 amFEMALE DOCTOR: "A doctor who was one of the first people at the scene has described how she found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting and fitting. She had also lost control of her bodily functions. The woman, who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father. She said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripal's face or body. The doctor said she had been worried she would be affected by the nerve agent but added that she "feels fine."
She clearly states that she found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting and fitting and that she had lot control of her bodily functions. I don't know of anyone who has the ability to spontaneously evacuate their bladder and bowl at will, more especially a female in front of a crowd on onlookers. The doctor put her in the recovery position, that means on her side, so there would have been visible evidence of Yulia having lost control of her bodily functions.
FREYA CHURCH: "Sixteen minutes later [that is, after being seen on CCTV], personal trainer Freya Church, 27, came across the victims slumped on a bench. She said they seemed 'out of it' and assumed they were on drugs. "It was a young, blonde and pretty girl and it was definitely the man that's been pictured in the news – the guy that's a spy. She was passed out and he was looking up to the sky and I tried to get eye contact to see if they were okay. They didn't seem with it. To be honest I thought they were just drugged out as they were in a weird state. There are lots of homeless people here so I just thought they were homeless."
Freya Church clearly identifies them, "It was a young, blonde and pretty girl and it was definitely the man that's been pictured in the news – the guy that's a spy." She also says "I tried to get eye contact to see if they were okay", so she had a clear view of their faces.
Destiny Reynolds, 20, who works in Ganesha Handicrafts in the centre, said: "I saw quite a lot of commotion – there were two people sat on the bench and there was a security guard there. They put her on the ground in the recovery position, and she was shaking like she was having a seizure. It was a bit manic. There were a lot of people crowded round them. It was raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them over them."
She says "It was raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them over them." so these too would have had a clear view of the Skripal's faces.
Not one of these people, or the other witnesses, has come forward to say it wasn't the Skripals, unlike DS Bailey, they are not subject to a gagging order by way of the The Official Secrets Act.
All these witnesses would have assumed they were the Skripals because the media claimed that they were. So did the Wiltshire police at least, at that time. This is not of evidential value.Miheila says: August 21, 2018 at 2:56 amFreya Church has been proven to be an unrelaible witness. Destiny Reynolds may not have had a clear view of their faces at all, especially as she said that there was quite a lot of commotion, and "There were a lot of people crowded round them. It was raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them over them." How far away was she?
I'm also suspicious of that anonymous 'female nurse'. I had read that this first responder was a 'male nurse' too. Apparently, s/he was a military nurse, and had had experience with the African Ebola outbreak. S/he apparently spent 30 minutes with the Skripals! Was it her who made the original emergency call?
Besides, descriptions differ. CCTV evidence has been suppressed, and that alone suggests that they were not the Skripals, and so does the police interest in the Market walk footage. So, no, I'm not at all convinced.
I've not read any posts here since last night, so this post must be read bearing that in mind.Zee Piers says: August 21, 2018 at 3:15 amI briefly replied to John Bull's four points, but I'd like to say more on this. His first point related to the surveillance op being conducted on Sergei. I said more or less that this would have been standard procedure in this type of case, and the work would have been carried out by MI5 watchers. In 2006 Special Branch was merged with the Met's Anti Terrorism Branch to become the Counter Terrorism Command, and I'm pretty sure that DS Bailey would have been seconded to that organisation, and that he was Sergei's 'front-line' case officer. His roles would be to protect Sergei (an SIS asset) and to pass on intelligence to MI5's regional liaison officer at Bristol.
Now John Bull was assuming that those involved in this operation were one of two competing parties. The second party being covered in his second point. This is where I disagree. I don't count MI5's role here as being one of the two parties, for it is at least theoretically neutral.
The other party is not neutral, and that is MI6. It is MI6 who were (and still probably are) acting in competition with the unknown group. Both groups were involved in planning a their own Skripal operations prior to 4th March. Let's call this unknown group, Group X – This shadowy group represents certain US political interests.
This is what I said in my original post (19th at 3.50pm) that first brought the dual-party theory into the light:
"Let's suppose [the film] was their source of poisoning inspiration. Let's also suppose that two competing groups became involved at different stages. Let's say there was a pre-planned, well-organised operation prepared by group A, but when group B somehow learnt of it, a hurried attempt was made by group B to scupper group A's plan – which might have failed. Just speculation, but it would account for many anomalies. These two groups could be two different intelligence agences, or one of them possibly being a rogue faction within an intelligence agency".
This remains the bare bones of my theory, and I was deliberately being rather coy about it at the time. Of course, another party that quickly became involved in all this is the British parliament itself, and I suspect that MI6 sought urgent advice from government ministers when they realised Group X's intentions. (They would have only given them information on a need-to-know basis). MI6, wanting to protect their assets as well as Britain's interests, attempted to neutralise Group X's plan at short notice. It was the hurried nature of all this, along with extreme political pressure, that caused mistakes to be made. Secret heated discussions between the US, UK and *French* governments have no doubt been going on about this situation ever since 4th March.
I could say much more, but for now, I'll try and catch up with a long backlog of posts !
Competing groups might explain the 15:47 CCTV image if it was indeed Sturgess and Rowley, not the Skripals. If the Skripals were to be whisked away alive, a couple who could be mistaken for them, walking in a direction away from the point of disappearance and after it could be used, should the need arise, to deflect from the real circumstances by Group A. However, Group B, hastily interfering with Group A's plan, causes a public scene, making the red herring couple a liability instead of an asset – which might explain the release of the footage (part of Group A's original plan) but the lack of an appeal for help by local authorities (because the plan was FUBAR, making the pre-planned release of the CCTV footage a mistake).Anonymous says: August 21, 2018 at 6:38 amMiheila, I am not surprised to hear MI5 are in Bristol. Two other odd occurrences doing to mind. The cricketer Ben Stokes' charging decision being inexplicably sent to London.Noone says: August 21, 2018 at 1:16 amAnd the mystery of "Gordon the Stalker". Arrested nearly six months ago but not charged. A complete fabrication by extremely well-connected people in Bristol to save their bacon, with security services help.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5825971/avon-somerset-police-arrest-stalker-man-sent-notes/Note I had a lot of trouble trying to post here today!Miheila says: August 21, 2018 at 3:22 am-- –
Very interesting read. A deep dive into the history behind the British/Obama Administration conspiracy. https://tinyurl.com/yavnxvmm
Thanks Noone very interesting. I signed this too, about ending the 'special relationship', (which in my opinion was toxic and one-sided ever since it began): https://action.larouchepac.com/declassifyukdocsPeter Beswick says: August 20, 2018 at 10:56 pmBrexiteers go on so much about 'British sovereignty', yet they ignore the fact that Britain has effectively been a vassal of the USA for decades.
I'm not saying Kier Prichard did it on his own, and the Met have their burden to carry, but what this man has achieved in such a short time is truly breathtaking.Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 11:17 pmWilts police are now a laughing stock, not just in Salisbury or Wilts but the UK and internationally. The public trust level must be as low as it can possibly get. The rank and file must be suffering humiliation, worthlessness, shame and depression. Motivation must be zero.
What a jerk, why do that to yourself, your reputation, your family, your colleagues, your force of 20 20 years ? Is he really that thick, so stupid that he couldn't see this coming and when he did he had a chance to say enough is enough or is that side of his character so flawed that he is either too cowardly or just unaware of what people think of him?
"ACC Pritchard said: "I have a huge sense of pride taking over the reigns as Temporary Chief Constable for a force I have served for more than 20 years.
At least Basu has had the good grace to keep his mouth shut and go into hiding.
I can't see how he (and others ) can avoid criminal prosecutions but it won't be long until the civil prosecutions begin which will cost the tax payers dear. But those who are involved can expect (if they do manage to stay out of jail) to now spend much of the rest of their lives fighting litigation
They brought it on themselves and unfortunately us but none more so than Dawn.
Justice for Dawn!
"Mike has been a fantastic leader and he leaves us in great shape – both in terms of engagement amongst officers and staff and, externally, as evidenced in our strong Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) gradings.
"We are blessed with outstanding officers, staff and volunteers across our organisation who achieve great things every day and who strive to provide an excellent service to all of our communities.
"Now is the time to look forward and to continue, as we've always done, with our values and communities at the heart of everything we do.""
https://indexwiltshire.co.uk/wiltshire-police-to-get-temporary-chief-constable/
Peter, They are all useless. It seems to be the only qualification needed these days. Now Jeremy Hunt is calling for more sanctions on Russia – this simply proves that he is ignorant as well as useless.CharlieFreak says: August 21, 2018 at 9:27 amFor years Russia has been dedollarising; Russia will manage just fine with more British sanctions (and American sanctions for that matter) and the most damage will be done to British companies that will be shut out of Russia – not because of anything Russia has done but because of what their own idiotic government has done.
TPTB are cretins!
With immediate effect, I am starting a personal 'buy Russian' campaign. If I find anything in the shops that is 'made in Russa', I will buy it in preference to anything made in the EU. Every little helps!
Ditto. There is another country that I and my relatives never buy fresh produce from, always going for South African or South American alternatives, or – if they're unavailable – going without. I can't say publicly which country as I might get a visit from the boys in blue!Liane Theuer says: August 20, 2018 at 9:57 pm
CFALEXANDER GOLDFARBLiane Theuer says: August 20, 2018 at 10:04 pmGoldfarb is a big player :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Goldfarb_(biologist)Alexander Goldfarb is/was a friend of Sergei Skripal, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov.
Associated with George Soros :
Goldfarb was among the first group of Russian exiles in New York whom Soros invited to brainstorm his potential Foundation in Russia. In 1991 Goldfarb persuaded Soros to donate $100 million to help former Soviet scientists survive the hardships of the economic shock therapy adopted by the Yeltsin government.
From 1992 to 1995, Goldfarb was Director of Operations at Soros' International Science Foundation, with many more Soros projects to follow.Here is a chronology of Goldfarb's press statements.
One gets the impression that he has prompted TM how to argue.March 6
Quote : Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, Mr Goldfarb said:
"The Russian secret services and the regime of Mr Putin had the motive and the opportunity to do this. And they did it before. I mean, it's only natural for any reasonable person to suspect them."
Mr Goldfarb, a close friend of killed dissident Alexander Litvinenko, said he has a theory as to why Russia could be behind the latest alleged poisoning.
The microbiologist and activist said it is not a spy theory but instead a political move.
He said: "It is a political motivation and it has to do with the elections of the President, which will happen in Russia in about ten days from now and the major problem for Putin is the turnout because his main opponent has been barred from participating and he has called for a boycott of the elections.
"So Mr Putin is worried there are few people who come people who are apathetic in Russia so this will be used regardless of whether Putin did it or not.
"He has a way to invigorate his nationalistic and extremely anti-western rhetoric."
Mr Goldfarb said the "majority" of Russians would perceive the "poisoning" as the right thing to do as they view Putin as a leader that can "get his enemies wherever they are across the globe."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/927751/Russian-spy-poisoned-Salisbury-London-Alexander-Litvinenko-Sergei-Skripal-Putin-spy-swapMarch 8
Quote : Former-spy Sergei Skripal, his daughter and a policeman have been poisoned in Salisbury in what is suspected to be a state-sponsored hit.
But it is not the first time this has happened as Alexander Litvinenko, who was former Russian secret service officer who defected to the west, died in November 2006 after he drank tea laced with radioactive polonium-210 at the Millenium Hotel in Mayfair.
His friend Alex Goldfarb appeared on Newsnight to warn that it was the inaction from the UK on the Litvinenko murder which led to the recent suspected attempted assassination.
Mr Goldfarb said: "For 10 years the British Government refused to admit that the Litvinenko murder was a state-sponsored crime and up to the very public inquiry which happened in 2016 they maintained this is just a regular criminal matter.
"The moment an English judge ruled that it was a state-sponsored murder and in all probability ordered by Putin David Cameron went on TV and said, 'we knew it from day one'.
"So they were trying to keep it quiet to not to annoy Putin and they invited other attacks like this.
"If the response now will be the same, only words without any actions, there will be a third and a fourth attempt."
He added: "I would pick the Putin theory because he is the only one who had a motive and an opportunity too and he has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to be involved in the previous assassination – I mean Litvinenko who was my friend.
"He has a motive. His motive is the elections which are coming in about 10 days and there is a very low turnout expected and he needs to energise his nationalistic, anti-western electorate."
"So, he wants to portray himself as a tough guy who can get his enemies anywhere in the world and who has been presenting himself as the only thing that is protecting Russia and the Russians from the plotting and the scheming of the west."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/928729/bbc-newsnight-russia-spy-war-bbc-news-Sergei-Skripal-assassination-latest-PutinMarch 14 by Luke Harding
Quote : Alex Goldfarb, who knew Glushkov, said he thought his death was highly suspicious. "I think it's fairly clear it wasn't an accident or disease. It's either suicide or strangulation, like with Boris [Berezovsky]," Goldfarb said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/14/russian-exiles-nikolai-glushkov-death-london-suspicious-friends-claimMarch 17 DailyNewsUSA
Quote : Alex Goldfarb, a friend of both men as well as a prominent critic of Russia, insisted Vladimir Putin must have ordered both hits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwpV7n-rLTUMarch 18
Quote : Police insist they have discovered no connection between the strangling of former businessman Nikolai Glushkov, 68, at his London home last Monday and the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury a fortnight ago.
But Alex Goldfarb, a friend of both men as well as a prominent critic of Russia, insisted Vladimir Putin must have ordered both hits.
Mr Goldfarb told BBC Radio 4: 'There is no connection in a forensic sense probably, but if you look at the larger picture of politics, I am convinced that no murder of this sort could have happened without the personal approval of Putin or some of his immediate deputies.'
Mr Goldfarb was also close to former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, who was murdered with radioactive polonium-210 in London, and exiled tycoon Boris Berezovsky, who was found dead at his Surrey home in suspicious circumstances.
'All of these in my view have the common denominator of Mr Putin flexing his muscle,' said Mr Goldfarb, a scientist who lives in New York.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5514213/Murder-Putin-critic-linked-Skripal-nerve-agent-attack.htmlLook at actual pictures of Nikolai Glushkov. I see certain similarities between Glushkov and the man on the red bag CCTV.PasserBy says: August 20, 2018 at 11:18 pmCould you elaborate on those similarities please? I've had a look but didn't see any. The CCTV footage is terrible quality but what "image" I get does not coincide with available photos of Glushkov.Liane Theuer says: August 20, 2018 at 11:22 pmGoldfarb is certainly a person to be avoided – with friends like that who needs enemies? Litvinenko's dad suspects Goldfarb was his son's assassin.
The claim is made in that youtube video that Goldfarb was Skripal's friend as well. It would not be a surprise but it would be good to obtain confirmation.
PasserBy, if I could post photos here, I would be able to show the similarity in a collage. But it´s just a guess.PasserBy says: August 20, 2018 at 11:25 pmUnderstood, Liane.lissnup says: August 21, 2018 at 11:31 amI agree, Liane, and have commented here about it. Glushkov has a young, pretty, blonde daughter. I am not sure if it was the same daughter who reportedly discovered his body.Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 8:19 pmStatement from Chief Constable Kier Pritchard and PCC Angus Macpherson on injured officerDuncan says: August 20, 2018 at 8:28 pm
http://archive.is/Wo4lE#selection-1413.0-1413.89"I would like to reassure you all that Nick is receiving medical intervention and care from highly specialist medical practitioners experienced in these matters."
Why did Pritchard say "highly specialist medical practitioners experienced in these matters" instead of something less specific? Who are these "highly specialist" and "experienced" practitioners? The medics at SDH were quite humble in the Newsnight programme – I am sure none of them would regard themselves as 'highly specialist and experienced' in treating a nerve agent.
And then.Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 8:48 pmJOBS HOMES MOTORS Book an AdBusiness directory Local Info DatingExchange and Mart
NewsJobsSportYour Say
9
MENU
NEWS5th JuneKier Pritchard says DS Nick Bailey poisoned at Skripal house
Exclusive by Rebecca Hudson @JournalRebecca
EXCLUSIVE
Dt Sgt Nick Bailey.
DETECTIVE Sergeant Nick Bailey was poisoned with a nerve agent when he and other officers attended Sergei Skripal's home looking for evidence including signs of drug use or suicide notes.
9
Chief Constable Kier Pritchard told the Journal he had watched evidence from body-worn cameras used by officers who first attended the scene on March 4, and that their response to the incident was "first class".
"We would not have known from those first hours what we were dealing with. At that time we didn't know, and why would they, if there was anything other than a medical incident, or something that was drug-related or something more sinister," he said.
CC Pritchard said DS Bailey was one of a team of officers who attended Mr Skripal's home in Christie Miller Road, after the Russian former-spy and his daughter were found slumped on a bench in the city three months ago.
He said officers were looking for information to establish a timeline of events and explain why the Skripals had fallen "gravely ill", as well as making sure there was nobody else affected.
"That [information] could be a suicide note, it could be evidence of drugs, it could be evidence of some form of substance," CC Pritchard added.
And he said DS Bailey (pictured) and his family are still receiving support from Wiltshire Police.
CC Pritchard said: "Nick has been to Wiltshire Police headquarters, he came in last week and that was a very positive step forward.
"This has been a long three months for many of us can you just imagine the impact on your children and your wife and your family life when all you're trying to do is your job? My heart absolutely goes out to Nick and his family over all that they've suffered."
CC Pritchard said officers at the scene underwent a "decontamination process" at Salisbury District Hospital overnight on Sunday and into Monday morning, after details of the attack became clearer.
And, following that, Wiltshire Police set up a "welfare cell" to help affected officers understand and work through the psychological effects of the attack.
"We have supported over 90 members of our staff in either one to one sessions or group meetings," CC Pritchard revealed. "Of course one of those 90 will be Nick Bailey".
CC Pritchard shared his pride in Wiltshire Police, and the citizens of Salisbury, for their response to the "colossal events".
"We [Wiltshire Police] have the ability and the confidence to be able to deal with international and global issues. I hope that provides real confidence to the public of how proud they can be.
"And I want to put on record how proud I am of the community of Salisbury. They have demonstrated the true brilliance of a community.
"Despite a global issue, and despite the massive impact, the way the Salisbury general public has responded has been exemplary."
By Rebecca Hudson @JournalRebeccaHead of News
'Spacemen' in The Maltings on Sunday evening officers at the scene underwent a "decontamination process" at Salisbury District Hospital overnight on Sunday and into Monday morningMarie says: August 20, 2018 at 9:58 pmWhy would that be? SDH suspected a nerve agent by 6am Monday morning, not Sunday evening.
The only way anyone could have suspected more than a drug overdose on Sunday would have been prior knowledge but if someone had prior knowledge and did not ensure that ALL emergency responders were protected, that would not just be negligent
The only way anyone could have suspected more than a drug overdose on Sunday would have been prior knowledgePaul says: August 20, 2018 at 10:13 pmYes and no. Don't understand why standard clean-up operations for fentanyl poisoning are ignored here. it includes protective clothing and hosing down public areas where the fentanyl may be present. Sunday evening clean-up at Maltings was SOP for fentanyl. This is not mysterious.
Moving from a fentanyl od diagnosis to an unknown agent occurred Sunday evening. SDH stated that in the announcements on Monday.
Liane, it wasn't just protective clothing it was the full 'moonsuit' but not everyone wore one. When I mentioned prior knowledge, I was thinking of Rob's idea that British intelligence might have got wind of an FBI/CIA plot to use an agent from Porton Down. If there been any prior knowledge, then allowing any first responders to be at the scene not wearing full hazmat gear, would have been a crime in itself.Liane Theuer says: August 20, 2018 at 9:41 pmRemember that Kier Pritchard had his first day on duty on March 5. Maybe he was not well informed about Bailey´s part in the case.Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 10:21 pmDeputy Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu has taken over from Mark Rowley as the new Assistant Commissioner responsible for leading counter terrorism nationally on March 5.
March 1 a new temporary assistant chief constable has been selected at Wiltshire Police. ACC Craig Holden joined Kier Pritchard.
So who was Bailey´s supervisor on March 4 ? Deputy Chief Constable Paul Mills ?
I am beginning to wonder if Bailey was even poisoned at all. Was it all just a PR exercise? Was he told to get himself to hospital on Tuesday morning so that the nerve agent story would have at least one other person involved. If he was feeling ill, why did he drive himself to hospital – he could have collapsed at any second!Marie says: August 21, 2018 at 2:23 amIf it was a bit of LARPing, that would at least explain why he didn't need a tracheostomy.
I am beginning to wonder if Bailey was even poisoned at all.Liane Theuer says: August 21, 2018 at 8:37 amMy guess is that he wasn't. He felt ill and as instructed went to the hospital on Tuesday to get checked out. Game was on at that point; so, he was put in a bed for observation and not allowed to leave. Drugged. That would be surreal, wouldn't it?
As I followed this segment in real time, there was a sense of elation in the media that they had a third victim. A first responder. Then they scrambled trying to explain what a DS would have been doing at Maltings; so, they switched it to he was at the house. Then there were questions as to why it took so long for the alleged poison to effect him. Somehow that got dropped as they continued to make different claims about where he'd been; finally settling on both Maltings and the house.
Paul and Marie, if Bailey was not poisoned the OPCW has to lie ! They took blood samples of all three on March 22. After that Bailey was released. I´m convinced that Bailey was poisoned with the same nerve agent, whatever agent that might be.Anonymous says: August 21, 2018 at 8:53 amThe OPCW did not lie – but they were deceived. The OPCW says they checked the identities of the individuals they tested against IDs. How hard would it be for the government to issue a passport on the 'name' of Nicholas Bailey?CharlieFreak says: August 21, 2018 at 9:40 amThis raises the question again of how the OPCW acquired the samples they took away with them. As I understand it the OPCW scientists who came to the UK are not clinically trained – they are effectively lab technicians – so they do not have the training to "take" samples from patients. They are reported as "collecting samples" but to my knowledge from reading other reports and articles it was UK medical staff who "took" the samples – and then handed them over to the OPCW. Even if they took the samples in front of the OPCW, I bet at some point they said something along the lines of "Oh hang on a minute, I just need to go and put labels on these phials back in a minute".John Bull says: August 21, 2018 at 4:27 pmIn his interview on German TV, Boris said: "[The OPCW] are coming in today to look at the sample we have of the nerve agent."CharlieFreak says: August 22, 2018 at 10:34 amThanks, John. Even more reason to be doubtful about the whole process.Marie says: August 20, 2018 at 9:49 pm
CFTwo SDH physicians had a completed training in a highly specialized program at Porton Down shortly before 4 Mar. It's been hinted that one or both were on duty 4 Mar.Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 10:22 pmBut Bailey did not check in until 6 March. Were PD specialists there throughout? Why didn't they just take the patients to PD instead of risking contaminating a public hospital?Liane Theuer says: August 20, 2018 at 11:18 pmPaul, if Bailey really checked in March 6, why was his police car cordoned off in the morning of March 5 at the parking lot SDH ?Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 11:37 pmBecause the official story is all lies Liane.Marie says: August 21, 2018 at 2:31 amI recall reading at some point that Bailey drove himself to SDH on Monday morning. Try as I might, however, I couldn't find it again. I know there is a comment on MoonOfAlabama mentioning the same thing but it does not have a link.
Then Mark Urban said in the Newsnight programme that Bailey drove himself there on Tuesday morning .
Take you pick!
Were PD specialists there throughout?Paul says: August 21, 2018 at 7:39 amThose were not PD specialists but SDH physicians that had received PD training. That might be in addition to PD scientists that SDH spokespersons have said were there as well. So, plenty of professionals focused on nerve agent poisoning could have been there during the first 36 hours.
SDH had a whole new unoccupied wing they could have commandeered to isolate the patients. Also to keep regular SDH staff and their eyes away from the patients as well. Wouldn't that be preferable to transporting them to PD with so many eyes watching?
But that was my original point. A training course does not make anyone: "highly specialist medical practitioners experienced in these matters" Where does the 'experience in the matters' come from?Miheila says: August 20, 2018 at 6:20 pmI'm posting this reply to Max_B here because this is the second time that there's been no 'reply' option to his posts. No idea why, but the blue word inthe corner is missing.Duncan says: August 20, 2018 at 8:03 pmIf you really "don't care", Max_B, then why on earth are you making such a fuss over it ? I do care. And after accusing me of getting my facts wrong (over Lavrov) you apologise to newcomer (Новичoк) Cherrycoke only when s/he corrected you. Maybe you forgot.
Anyway, you say: "Fentanyl's and Carfentanil *are* nerve agents, I understand you want to rely on a much narrower definition of nerve agent that only includes Organophosphates, but that definition is just not accurate".
In your opinion only; not professional opinion which has for decades treated organophosphate agents as nerve agents, and fentanyls as (narcotic-analgesic type) incapacitants.
You said, "The substance responsible for the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents isn't an Organophsophate, that's why they are scrabbling around for a redefinition".
I agree with this, although we are only surmising that the Salisbury/Amesbury substance is not an organophosphate (due to symptoms), for no-one has actually specified its nature. And yes, I can see that they are scrabbling around, and so are you ! Fair enough. But how can this explain why nobody has officially specified what this chemical is ? As far as I can tell, it doesn't. Why can't they simply be open about its nature and honest about their scrabbling ?Yes, of course opioids depress the CNS, but so do lots of substances such as alcohol, and, yes Peter, even axes ! This does not make them nerve agents for they do not inhibit acetylcholinestaerase – crucial to the definition.
Wikipedia: "Nerve agents, sometimes also called nerve gases, are a class of organic chemicals that disrupt the mechanisms by which nerves transfer messages to organs. The disruption is caused by the blocking of acetylcholinesterase".
I perfectly understand the argument over BZ versus Carfentanyl, but surely, rather than redefine the latter as a nerve agent, why not simply redefine it as an opioid chemical weapon ? Organophosphate and carbamate pesticides are officially (and biochemically) nerve agents, but they're not chemical weapons. In the same way, most opioids are not chemical weapons but some, such as the fentanyls should be. Salisbury has highlighted this failing, hence the scrabbling about.
To include certain opioids as nerve agents (rather than opioid CW's), then the official, long-established and generally-accepted scientific definition must be changed which would only invite more confusion.
Agreed.Cascadian says: August 20, 2018 at 8:20 pm
Opioid receptor agonists are not nerve agents.
However, if carfentanil was suspected then unprotected contact with the victims would not be the protocol.
The true first responders were the heroes.
Unless they knew enough ahead of time to not be afraid."The true first responders were the heroes." And they were who ? By the testimony of some who were aware of them (i.e. the unfeeling Freya Church) just walked on like The Good Samaritans they most certainly are not!Duncan says: August 21, 2018 at 7:05 amPerhaps there was an assumption that in an, allegedly, druggie infested town like Salisbury, most people would ignore the histrionics of the pair on the bench and walk on, leaving it to 'the first responders' to deal with it. Convenient, if it worked.
If, and it is an if, the lady doctor and the nurse rushed to give the two prone figures first aid without considering their own safety then these two are the only heroic ones in this shambles.Marie says: August 20, 2018 at 10:09 pmAs of 4 Mar, there has been no known fentanyl overdose in Salisbury. First responders would have been trained in what to look for and how to proceed in a fentanyl od situation, but practice makes perfect. There's not that much difference in the emergency response protocols for fentanyl and carfentanil. The difference is in the medical treatment in the hours and days after the first couple of hours, and symptoms, treatments, and responses rather than tests for the presence of carfentanil is the guide for physicians.John Bull says: August 20, 2018 at 1:09 pmRob, you are a great one for making lists of questions. You may have this one on a list already:-Duncan says: August 20, 2018 at 12:32 pmIf HMG knew that Russia had declared death to all traitors, what measures did they take to protect Sergei Skripal, a confirm traitor but also a member of our security services. And why were those measures so lamentably unsuccessful?
Rob,Miheila says: August 20, 2018 at 6:29 pmLook who is the Home Secretary's right hand man. Front bencher? Is he tresspassing?
Listen to Javid. The UK has never said what happened, (that's why we have the Blogmire) and I don't recall ANY Russian account, other than denial and show us evidence.
Glen needs to improve on his nodding skills. He is about three seconds too slow.
Time and practice will no doubt improve this."Hear, hear, honourably learned friend, Duncan !" Nod, nod, wink, winkJohn Bull says: August 20, 2018 at 11:15 amThose pontificating, sycophantic buffoons sicken me. What a charade. Fancy having beings like that running the show !
Rob, as ever good stuff.Duncan says: August 20, 2018 at 12:01 pmHaving followed your excellent blog for some weeks now, I've become convinced that there are four distinct elements to this affair: two opposing clandestine ops, an almost unbelievably idiotic false flag charade, and a random death:-
1. Operation 'Let's Keep Tabs on Sergei'. Run by MI5/6/SB to make sure their double agent doesn't come to any harm or become a triple agent. Electronic tagging, email monitoring, phone tapping, and friendly chats ever now and then. Worked well for years, then the wheels fell off on 4th March.
2. Operation 'Let's Extract Skripal'. Run by an unknown security agency but possibly contracted out to another. Deniable soft extraction so he could be wheeled out later to give evidence concerning the Trump Dossier, with or without his co-operation. The plan included his daughter, because she was needed to ensure Sergei said what he was supposed to say when the time came. Phase One carried out successfully on 4th March. Phase Two delayed by HMG playing silly games, but eventually mission was accomplished.
3. The 'Let's Blame Putin' Charade. When MI6 reported to its ultimate boss that an ex-Russian spy had been poisoned, Boris would have rightly assumed the culprits were probably Russian. But then, remembering how Lavrov humiliated him at that press conference in Moscow last December, he decided to make sure Russia did get the blame and take the rap for it. With the help of the new inexperienced Defence Secretary and others, he came up with a hastily and ill-conceived plan to show that the poison could have only come from Russia, ensuring Russia's guilt. The Home Secretary at the time, Amber Rudd, did not buy into it so had to be replaced, but others – including the overworked Theresa May – were taken in. The narrative quickly fell apart, but having persuaded the world and his wife of Putin's guilt, there was no going back. The hole Boris dug just got deeper. And all the evidence – or the lack of it – had to be destroyed. No wonder Boris resigned.
4. A Tragic Death. Four months after Skripal, a couple in Amesbury were hospitalised for drug misuse; just two of the many cases SDH would have dealt with during the year. But having been persuaded by HMG that the Skripals had been poisoned with Novichok-that-only-comes-from-Russia, the local authorities took no chances and assumed the two from Amesbury had been likewise affected. HMG, desperate to keep their narrative alive, leapt on the incident to re-ignite the anti-Russian rhetoric and claim Dawn's death was 'murder', 'a terrorist act', 'a war crime' etc. etc. The narrative was even more idiotic than the first one (a scent bottle in a litter bin for four months!) – and ironically, it blew the gaff. They said Dawn was poisoned by the very same Novichok-that-only-comes-from-Russia and died because she received 10-times the dose Skripal got. But we know she took eight days to die. It could not have been Novichok.
Perhaps the police should stop trying to hunt down non-existent assassins and investigate Boris Johnson. The crime? Misconduct in public office, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Indeed John,John Bull says: August 20, 2018 at 12:31 pmWhen I was writing my scenario below, I started to realise that rather than satirical it could be factual. Little Gavin might be working under that man who would be king's tutelage. Gavin having told the Russians to shut up, does not do well under questioning.
Duncan – I read your excellent piece after posting my 'Four Elements' bit. I think you're right. You've hit some good points.Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 12:04 pm'A tragic death' If Salisbury and the aftermath was not already crazy, Amesbury hit new heights of idiocy. A woman was taken from a house with poisoning in the morning but others in the house were not taken to hospital for observation.Max_B says: August 20, 2018 at 2:14 pmLater the same day, the other occupant of the same house fell ill. Decontamination tents were sent to the location but were not used. Instead police put the second victim in an ambulance with no protection whatsoever.
Just watch this short video and ask yourself – what were the police thinking!!**??
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-44729888/footage-of-amesbury-poisoning-victim-entering-ambulance
Two days after Dawn and Charlie had been admitted to hospital, and as a direct result of the Amesbury incident, Detective Sergent Erin Martin of Salisbury CID took the " unusual step " of issuing an official warning via Wiltshire Constabulary to " drug users " in south Wiltshire "to be extra cautious" , . "We are asking anyone who may have information about this batch of drugs to contact the Police", " where the drugs may have been bought from, or who they may have been sold to."John Bull says: August 20, 2018 at 3:24 pmThanks, Max_B. That's interesting. So at least Salisbury CID didn't fall for the Novichok nonsense.Peter Beswick says: August 20, 2018 at 4:55 pmBy the way, I agree that any agent which attacks the central nervous system can be termed a 'nerve agent'.
So do I, including a well placed axeMiheila says: August 20, 2018 at 6:49 pmJohn, you're poaching my theory ! The one I hinted at in an earlier post (yesterday I think).Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 10:13 amLike you, I'm convinced that two opposing covert ops are involved.
Your point 1. would be standard practice. Sergei would have been subjected to discreet surveillance by MI5 watchers and GCHQ throughout his British exile. Most likely heroic DS Bailey was his local case officer. But let's not forget that Sergei was still working for MI6 and that Pablo Miller was probably still his controller (line manager). There's a saying, 'once an intelligence officer; always an intelligence officer' – a saying which certainly holds true for many ex-SIS folk. It was his covert activities that lead to your next point.
Your point 2. is more or less exactly what I had worked out myself, and I'll be working on the finer details for some time yet.
Your point 3. is spot on too. This is the opportunistic 'political capital' angle I mentioned in an earlier post.
Your point 4. I see this as a crude continuation of the above. A further opportunity. Nothing more.
Eventually, we'll be joining more and more dots together. Good work, John !
Rob,Rob Slane says: August 20, 2018 at 10:37 am
You said:"Party A is British Intelligence, whereas Party B is perhaps some sort of Trump supporting element of US Intelligence/military. The Skripals are therefore currently under their protection. Have I got that right?"
Broadly yes; that is the bare bones of what I currently think.
You counter with:
"Party A would be FBI/CIA Intel with nerve agent from US part of Porton Down, and Party B would be British Intelligence believe what Party A is about to do is potentially disastrous, and so try to stop it."
I have two particular issues with that idea. I mention them, to see whether they can be answered in a way that allows us to build a scenario around your idea.
Firstly, when you say FBI/CIA, what you really mean is Cabal. The FBI/CIA would be acting on behalf of HRC/DNC/Obama/etc. to remove an individual who could expose them and throw light on their illegal activities – specifically spying on Trump. Why would May/M_5/M_6 want to stop that? They are in exactly the same boat and do not want their role to be disclosed either. Also Sergei was nothing but an expense for HMG; they already had all the information he was ever going to give them.
Ah, you say, British intelligence didn't like the idea of a nerve agent being set loose in Salisbury. OK, well why not just have a word with the FBI/CIA and agree to do it in a way that keeps everyone (except Sergei) happy. I am sure that between FBI/CIA/M_5/M_6/HMG, there was something that they could all agree would do the job and not threaten the whole of Salisbury. Why not just get him at home?
But that isn't my biggest problem.
Secondly, Sergei was on British soil. If HMG/M_5/M_6 got wind of a plan to kill him, why would they not just take him off the streets immediately? Get him into protective custody. He had already been to the police to say he was in fear of his life, so get him somewhere safe. Then there is no need for any 'nerve agent' attack at all. The FBI/CIA might be a bit miffed but Trump would not complain; he would say British intelligence did a great job!
In this case, Bailey visits Sergei on Saturday morning and says: "Right Sergei, go and get Yulia and then we will take you in. You will be safe for the rest of your life. All you have to do is give me the SD card and we will take care of the rest." Job done and it would have saved an awful lot of ferreting around in rubbish bins ever since.
So if party A was indeed some black op of the FBI/CIA, why did party B let it proceed right up to 4 March and then try to thwart it at the last moment, instead of just killing it stone dead? If party B didn't stop the FBI/CIA earlier and Bailey was sent in to save the Skripals, it rather looks like they didn't get the SD card anyway
Good points Paul. For now, the only thing I'll say is with regard to the second problem, which is this. It would all depend on when this plot was discovered. If it was days or weeks in advance, then yes, you're absolutely correct. But if it was some time on the morning or even early afternoon of 4th March, then that would change things. And to be frank, even if there was a "cover up" of a "cover up" it doesn't look like it was very well thought through.Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 10:57 amRob
Rob,Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 11:05 amIf party B discovered the plot on Sunday morning, they would have had the whole day to find Sergei and take him in. Sergei wasn't trying to hide; they would have found him easily on council CCTV. There would also have been police cars all day outside Sergei's house, waiting for him and police would have been crawling all over the city.
If party B discovered the plot at, say, 2pm and Sergei was not at home, they still had options. Surely the police would have launched their procedures for something like a bomb threat. The city would be closed off immediately and police would have been everywhere. People would have been told to evacuate the city and get to safety. Given 2 or 3 hours, procedures would exist to minimise the risk to the general public.
Even if they only had one hour's notice, I can't see the police doing nothing and allowing a nerve agent to be deployed.
I should add that I still believe that on the Sunday and Monday, the Wiltshire police were honest and did a proper job. Some very funny details emerged very quickly by Monday evening they knew that this was a scam and on Tuesday the Met was brought in to cover it all up.Marie says: August 20, 2018 at 2:41 pmI should add that I still believe that on the Sunday and Monday, the Wiltshire police were honest and did a proper job.Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 3:04 pmAgree.
on Tuesday the Met was brought in to cover it all up.
Disagree. The Met or Met CT was in the lead as early as 7:00 PM on Sunday and no later than 9:00 PM. Publicly for the next day and a half SFD and SDH referred to the Met as a 'partner,' but one of the local police seniors did say on Monday or Tuesday that they were relieved of command on Sunday.
"The investigation into the possible poisoning of the Russian spy Sergei Skripal gained new momentum on Tuesday, as Scotland Yard announced its counter-terrorism police would take charge.."Marie says: August 20, 2018 at 11:36 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/06/counter-terrorism-take-on-russian-spy-sergei-skripal-poison-caseOkay – so what do you do with the subsequent statements from SDH/NHS that have clearly stated that on Sunday evening, SDH contacted NHS "Radiation, poison, etc." and NHS "Radiation, poison, etc" promptly contacted Met CT?Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 11:51 pmDid Met CT respond with, "We're busy with our tea and crumpets and it's not our patch anyway?"
The Monday announcements were issued by SDH and hours later the SPD, but we now also know that by 06:00 on Monday buzz about unknown agent and Skripal had spread throughout several UK agencies. Do you seriously think that SDH and SPD were in the lead that day? That referring to 'partners' was a simple nicety?
Is there not even a semi-automatic communication link from SPD to Wiltshire PD and the Met? Shortly after the incident, if we accept a Skripal neighbor eyewitness, a SPD patrol car stopped at Skripal's house. That indicates that Skripal has been preliminarily identified as one of the bench people. Even if that eyewitness is wrong, nobody disputes that a team of police arrived at Skripal's house sometime between 7:00 and 8:00 PM and by all accounts gained access to the house and searched it. If the Met or Met CT had any boots on the ground by then, they wouldn't have had enough to handle the search on its own. So, of course, local police assets were involved in this.
Do you think Craig Holden and Cara Charles-Barkwrote the statements they read on camera on Monday evening? Statements that only covered the barest of information,
You honestly believe that SPD operated exclusively on this matter from Sunday evening until Tuesday? Seemed to me that there was a bit of chaos at the law enforcement end on Monday as they didn't get much done by that evening statement and when national reporters were beginning to show up. SPD couldn't ascertain that a crime had been committed. Was Met CT pushing for a crime? Somebody behind the scenes with power sure was.
Boris had his script ready to go as soon as Rowley (Met CT) announced that Skripal was one of the victims.
Marie, I don't know why you are ranting at me, all I did was post a link – that is the official story! Anyway, just to correct a couple of things for you:Marie says: August 21, 2018 at 2:53 am" police arrived at Skripal's house sometime between 7:00 and 8:00 PM" No Bailey was there by 5pm.
" by 06:00 on Monday buzz about unknown agent" No the buzz by 6am on Monday was about a former Russian spy. The news of an unknown agent came later on Monday morning.
I find it helpful to be as precise as possible when so much possible evidence is mushy or conflicts.Peter Beswick says: August 20, 2018 at 9:49 amSPD has stated that the team of officers including Bailey went to Skripals house Sunday evening. I don't recall that SPD has given the time of they arrived. Skripals neighbors reported seeing several police cars and officers at Skripals house at 7:00. As eyewitnesses aren't generally all that reliable as to the precise time they observed something, I merely accepted 7:00 as the earliest and allowed that it could have been as late as 8:00. Either of which are good enough for a reconstructed timeline.
As to the report from one neighbor that a police car arrived at Skripal's house at 5:00, there's no other evidence to support that. I'm sort of accepting a 5:00-5:30 visit by a lone police car because checking on a home of a patient whose identity would not have been firmly established at that point is sort of what police do. I could have been Bailey, but I doubt it because it's too routine. That person wouldn't have entered the house. Likely knocked on the door and reported back that nobody was home. It's relevance for me is that it gives a time as to when Skripal had first been identified as one of the two possible patients.
Key Elements of the Hoax (I say key because a big part of the Hoax has been to throw in distractions, red herrings and a ton of irrelevant stuff to confuse and overload the story – It is Not meant to be understood)Peter Beswick says: August 20, 2018 at 9:51 amThe Conflicting advice of Novichoks that Public Health England (PHE) promulgated compared with that of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on Nerve Agents (the OPCW hadn't put anything out on Novichok specifically for the simple reason they didn't know anything)
https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/types-of-chemical-agent/nerve-agents/
The Director of Public Health England (PHE) Paul Cosford saying that Novichok actually does take a minimum of 3 hours to take effect after contact with a large dose
"If you become ill with this stuff (Novichok) from actually coming into contact with a significant amount of it then its within 6-12 hours, maximum (that symptoms would occur) – 3 hours is the minimum but you have to be in touch with a large dose.""
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-statement-on-incident-in-amesbury
Summary
PHE – Risk to public remains low (Despite being dead). "This Stuff" (Novichok) take effect in not less than 3 hours IF you get a very large dose through the skin
OPCW – Nerve Agents are deadly, the more toxic they are the deadlier they are. They are designed to kill. Through Skin contact will present symptoms in 20 – 30 mins, (inhalation much quicker)
No CCTV released by police.
Which would establish the actual Time Line rather than that of the Fake Official Narrative.
It would establish what the Skripals looked like that day and what actually occurred at the bench (the police don't want us to know either)
It could have saved the lives of the 3 children that Sergei gave bread to in the park when he first arrived in Salisbury that day if the boys had been poisoned by Novichok.
Bailey's Body Cam would establish what he did at the bench and Skripal home.
The Government Lie that it was the Russians that did it and could only have been them.
PHE – Risk to public remains low (Despite Dawn being dead)Duncan says: August 20, 2018 at 9:21 amDear Readers,Liane Theuer says: August 20, 2018 at 9:09 amI have a tome which addresses means and opportunity, and when I can paste it to the Blog you will hopefully see it. I will still bang on about Skripals and only Skripals being the park bench victims. We know that they were in Zizzi's after the duck feed with the boys, then onto the Mill Pub. As many of the recent posts had pointed out the Mill Pub has lots of CCTV footage and the police spent quite a long time interviewing the staff. (As one does in a terror investigation.
The Telegraph was still reporting that the Mill Pub was the last port of call before the park bench. I think that is true. However, TPTB want us to "ignore" that location and focus on the Novichok that dripped from Zizzi's table. Why?
The US media has send journalists to Salisbury very early. For example Ellen Barry, NYT. These journalists have influenced the official narrative to a decisive extent.Noone says: August 20, 2018 at 5:03 amOn March 9 ABC News has send their chief reporter Terry Moranto to Salisbury. This is the video : https://abcnews.go.com/International/video/soldiers-heading-scene-poisoning-attack-england-53638197
He used the Snap Fitness CCTV to establish the „fact" that the Skripals went from Zizzis through Market Walk to the bench.
Rob, just another false translation of what Putin said about traitors. Listen to Moran´s interpretation at 2:00 in the video. Quote : Vladimir Putin's held a town hall session and he was asked about this five's that had been traded and he said, and this is almost a direct quote : „They will kick the bucket. Trust me. They betrayed their colleagues, their brothers in arms. And they took thirty pieces of silver and are gonna choke on all that." [End quote]
At 3:00 Terry Moran shows the CCTV of Snap Fitness. It´s outside at the right side of the entrance.
Paul Craig Roberts: The CIA Owns the US and European MediaLiane Theuer says: August 20, 2018 at 7:38 amhttps://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/08/18/the-cia-owns-the-us-and-european-media/
One of the best books I have ever read is "Bought Journalists" :Miheila says: August 20, 2018 at 10:01 am
https://www.globalresearch.ca/english-translation-of-udo-ulfkottes-bought-journalists-suppressed/5601857Noone & Liane:Cascadian says: August 20, 2018 at 11:16 am
Excellent articles, thanks.
I recommend everyone to watch the video on Liane's link:
https://youtu.be/sGqi-k213eE
15 minutes well worth watching."Flat Earth New" by Nick Davies. It provides a plausible reason for the phenomena where all the new media carry the same headline and column with minor changes – it all comes from one source via a single feed that they all subscribe to (the Press Association, or sometimes Reuters).john_a says: August 19, 2018 at 10:44 pmHi Rob and all,Anonymous says: August 19, 2018 at 10:55 pmWe keep talking about the "official narrative". But actually, what is the official narrative and where does one find it?
I do try to keep up with events around the Skripal case. The media regularly and frequently cite "sources", official or otherwise. But have there been any actual authorized statements from the government containing anything like an "official" version of the events? There was Theresa May's statement to Parliament in March, but has there been anything since? If so, I must have missed it (which is quite possible).
For sure there's a media narrative. The media keeps floating new stories or bits of new information. But the media stories are often either self-contradictory or just plain nonsensical. Does this amount to an "official narrative"? Is the "perfume bottle" official for example? Or the novichok in the public toilets? Or are these only media stories?
I read in earlier posts that the police have issued an "official" timeline (contradicting earlier eye-witness accounts). Is this the case? Is there really a police timeline that one can look up in any official source, or is it just another media story?
Most recently the fact (?) was reported – apparently as a Guardian exclusive – that the government is "poised" (whatever that means) to submit an extradition request to Moscow. If true, it would be a very serious act. Has it been officially documented, or is even this simply another media story?
I apologise if I'm talking rubbish here, but I have the impression that there no such thing as an "official narrative" beyond what May told Parliament in March. Everything since then has been media smoke and mirrors. Or an I missing something?
I totally agree with you. And it seems none of the media is inclined to pin down and demand the official story. It is to the government's advantage to allow the media to run with unnamed sources to reinforce the Russia dunnit scenario, without themselves committing to itRob Slane says: August 19, 2018 at 11:35 pmHi John,chris says: August 20, 2018 at 5:36 amWhen I use the term "official narrative", which I do a lot, I am basically referring to three simple claims:
- That Sergei and Yulia Skripal, along with D.S. Nick Bailey, were poisoned by a "military grade nerve agent" known as a Novichok.
- That responsibility for this act lies with the Russian state.
- That the poisoning took place at the home of Mr Skripal, specifically by the application of the nerve agent to the handle of his front door.
The first two claims have been expressly made by Her Majesty's Government, whilst the third one has expressly been made by those in charge of the investigation.
There are of course other sub-claims that form a part of this (such as the day that Yulia and then Sergei were discharged from hospital) but these three claims are substantially it.
The main problem with the first claim is that the Skripals are alive and well. The main problem with the second is Russia is absolutely not the only country or entity that could have produced the alleged substance. And the main problem with the third claim is that it is a physical impossibility that 2 people could have come into contact with the alleged substance, and then collapsed at exactly the same time 4 hours later.
Everything else follows from those three basic, but demonstrably false claims.
Aren't " those in charge of the investigation" the only ones authorized to make "official statements"?Miheila says: August 20, 2018 at 5:59 amI agree with you completely, Rob, except for you saying that the Skripals are 'alive and well'. In truth, we can't be sure of this. All we know for certain is that Yulya was alive at the time the Reuters video was recorded.Anonymous says: August 20, 2018 at 9:35 amHi Rob,john_a says: August 20, 2018 at 9:43 amI definitely agree with you. Almost nothing is "official" except that Putin did it (whatever it was).
On your Point 3, what do we make of this post by CharlieFreak ?
I was discussing the 'door handle' theory with a relative about five or six weeks ago and he was telling me that he had been listening to a BBC Radio 4 'Today' interview with a Govt Security Minister the previous week (Ben Wallace?) in which he was asked if Novichok residue had actually been found by investigators on the door handle. According to my relative – who has been following the case and assumed from all the publicity that nerve agent residue had been found on the door handle – the Minister said it hadn't but it was a plausible the theory they were working with. As I understand it the interviewer then rhetorically remarked (without any obvious hint of irony or incredulity) that presumably it was quite possible that the 'assassins' came back after seeing the Skripals leave the house and wiped the door handle clean to remove the evidence!!
https://www.theblogmire.com/bbc-crimewatch-reconstruction-of-salisbury-poisonings-shelved/#comment-8643Can this be? Not even the door handle is "official" ???
Sorry, the above post was from me. The comment box has forgotten to save my user name.Brendan says: August 20, 2018 at 9:24 pmjohn_a,Brendan says: August 20, 2018 at 9:27 pm
"Is the "perfume bottle" official for example?"Officially the Novichok was found in a "small glass bottle" in Charlie Rowley's flat. No further details were officially given about the container. It was Charlie who said that he had found a perfume bottle with a known brand name, which Dawn sprayed on her wrists, and that the contents somehow got onto Charlie's hands.
– "Or the novichok in the public toilets?"Brendan says: August 20, 2018 at 9:38 pmNothing official as far as I know, except that the Hazmat guys searched the public toilets in QEM park. Some tabloid published a ludicrous story about Russia using that public toilet as a CW lab.
QEG parkBrendan says: August 20, 2018 at 9:32 pm– "Is there really a police timeline that one can look up in any official source, or is it just another media story?"Brendan says: August 20, 2018 at 9:34 pmThe Metropolitan Police published a timeline a number of times.
http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-incident-in-salisbury-298351
http://news.met.police.uk/news/renewed-appeal-for-information-from-anyone-who-saw-salisbury-victims-car-298912
http://news.met.police.uk/news/ongoing-investigation-into-incident-in-salisbury-on-4-march-309256This has been said many times before, but it's worth repeating that the police did not say when the Skripals visited the Mill pub, only that it was "at some time after" they arrived at Sainsbury's car park in Salisbury city centre. The police must have known more about the exact timing, since they had plenty of timestamped CCTV footage available to them. 'Unofficially' according to media reports, they went to Mill before they went to Zizzis, but there does not appear to be anything to support that version of events.
– "Most recently the fact (?) was reported – apparently as a Guardian exclusive – that the government is "poised" (whatever that means) to submit an extradition request to Moscow. If true, it would be a very serious act. Has it been officially documented, or is even this simply another media story?"Brendan says: August 20, 2018 at 9:36 pmI guess that this is the story that originated from the Press Association that the Russian assassins were identified from CCTV images. Nothing official about that, in fact the Security Minister called it "ill informed and wild speculation". However, the BBC has treated the report very seriously.
https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1020366761848385536
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43643025If the BBC continues to say that, it must have been leaked from some senior official source that wants the public to believe it, even if that source does not commit to it publicly.
– You ask in another post "Not even the door handle is "official" ???"Brendan says: August 21, 2018 at 7:43 amThe British authorities have not explicitly stated that the Novichok was found on the door knob, only on the front door: "Specialists have identified the highest concentration of the nerve agent, to-date, as being on the front door of the address.".
However, there have been various media reports that the nerve agent was found on the door handle. Furthermore, Sir Mark Sedwill, the UK's national security adviser stated in a publicly released letter that Russia had previously tested the use of door handles as a way of delivering nerve agents.
Sedwill says "DSTL established that the highest concentrations were found on the handle of Mr Skripal's front door. These are matters of fact." So I suppose you could call that official.Liane Theuer says: August 19, 2018 at 10:28 pmMy thesis: The Skripals did not walk through the Market Walk to the bench.Paul says: August 19, 2018 at 10:47 pm
I want to substantiate this thesis:We have two CCTVs of people that are NOT the Skripals :
15:47:43 Snap Fitness shows the couple with the red bag. First published on March 6.
Cain Prince, 28, runs Snap Fitness.
16:08:00 Jenny's restaurant shows three people. First published on March 9.
Mustafa Dalangal, 57, runs Jenny's restaurant .How did these two CCTVs find their way into the public ?
We know that the police didn´t publish a single CCTV. Why should they release this two ?
No, it were some journalists who found the CCTV earlier than the police.Look at this timeline of March 5 and 6 (Reporter Liam Trim) :
Monday March 5
6pm The BBC reports the man is Sergei Skripal, 66, an ex-military intelligence colonel who was convicted in Russia of passing state secrets to Britain
7pm At a press conference Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Craig Holden tells reporters it is not being treated as a counter-terror incident.
Tuesday March 6
09:07 The BBC named Skripal as the man who was found along with a woman in her 30s, believed to be known to him, on a bench near a shopping centre shortly after 4pm on Sunday.
09:37 Both supermarkets are open but there are national media providing coverage close to the police tape.
10:34 Sergei Skripal, 66, was found slumped on a bench in Salisbury alongside a 33-year-old woman, who the BBC understands is his daughter, Yulia Skripal.
10:53 The latest from the Press Association: „As CCTV believed to show the pair in the moments before they were found slumped on a bench emerged, the UK's top counter-terrorism officer, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, said: "We have to be alive to the fact of state threats."
10:56 Freya Church, 27, the gym worker, from Salisbury, told the Press Association: (..)
15:37 BBC home affairs correspondent sums up press conference
He's quite brutally frank here but it's true – we did not learn much from that press conference.
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/salisbury-russian-spy-police-substance-1302045I guess that Craig Holden in the evening of March 5 told reporters about a man in his 60th and a woman in her 30th were the couple found slumped on the bench. And I suspect he also mentioned the red bag.
This gave the Press Association the idea to look for the couple on private CCTVs.
PA was looking for a couple with a red bag and they found it at Snap Fitness.We know for a fact that PA found the wrong pair.
Had there been another couple on the CCTV with a red bag, then they would certainly have copied it, too ! So there was no second pair with a red bag in Market Walk at that time !Later on March 6 the police arrived at Snap Fitness :
Quote : Snap Fitness manager Cain Prince, aged 28, said: "Police had a good look at the footage and were interested in these two people. It was the only image they took away."
Mr Prince added that police said Skripal was "wearing a green coat". [End quote]"Police had a good look at the footage" – so, the police too didn´t see the Skripals in market Walk !
But they found it suspicious that there was a couple who also had a red bag. So they took it away.The same with Jenny's restaurant CCTV on March 9.
First the CCTV was discovered by The Sun.
Police came later :
Quote : Counter terror cops from SO15 Special Operations have seized new CCTV footage that shows two people who fit the description of the victims.
Cops seized the pictures from a local business yesterday (Fri) – two days after the proprietor told them he had it.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5767001/cctv-video-ex-russian-spy-sergei-skripal-daughter-yulia-walking-mystery-woman-before-poisoned/The Sun knew about the Snap Fitness CCTV and the red bag. Why did they focus on another couple ? Was the red bag couple not on Jenny's restaurant CCTV ? But they can not have fallen from the sky. I have no logical explanation other than this : Certain media wanted to create the illusion that the Skripals walked the Market Walk, although they didn´t.
Conclusion : Two different reporters have spotted CCTV. But no one has discovered the Skripals. In short, the Skripals didn´t walk through the Market Walk.
Liane, I think you are right. And why did the police take away that image from Snap Fitness? Because it was the couple on the bench! When the police searched the CCTV they knew what the bench couple looked like and that was who they were looking for.Paul says: August 19, 2018 at 10:57 pmIf it had been the real Skripals on the bench, why on earth would the police have taken away CCTV of a random couple with a red bag, yet not bothered to take any images of the Skripals?
"Yes Mr Cain, Mr Skripal was wearing a green coat but never mind about that; I think I will have this picture of these two other people if that's alright with you."
Another thought, this may explain the switch in the Mill/Zizzi or Zizzi/Mill timeline. The CCTV couple were clearly not coming from the direction of the Mill, they were coming from Zizzi.Liane Theuer says: August 20, 2018 at 7:45 amAs the police had made a mistake in releasing the CCTV image, they may have switched the story round and said it was the Mill first to cover up the fact that they had (ridiculously) issued a CCTV image of 2 otherwise random people coming from the wrong direction. By switching it round perhaps they thought it provided some cover for having issued images of people that were not the Skripals and left the idea in everyone's mind that the Skripals had come from the same direction.
Paul, both CCTVs were NOT released by the police but by the press ! This fact forced them to change the story. Why on earth was the time when the Skripals were in Mill Pub never given, neither by police nor journalists ?Peter Beswick says: August 20, 2018 at 8:40 amSomething very significant happened in the Mill. It had 12 CCTV cameras operating that day the recordings were all seized by the police. The Manager was was treated as a terror suspect and interviewed by police 8 times in the first week of the investigation. The Skripals went to the Mill before ZizzisPeter Beswick says: August 20, 2018 at 8:53 am"As further details of Col Skripal's movements emerged, a source close to Greg Townsend, manager of The Mill, revealed that he served the Russians last Sunday afternoon and had since been treated like a "terror suspect", interviewed by police up to eight times last week.
He said The Mill had 12 CCTV cameras, covering the large open-plan bar area as well as the upstairs balcony and lavatories overlooking it.
"The pub has obviously remained closed for more than a week and the cordon widened, but Greg feels like he has been kept completely in the dark, they're not telling him anything.
"He actually served them. He's had a bit of a time of it all and is a pending terror suspect.
"He certainly said he's being treated like one. He's had around eight police interviews.""
Sorry the Telegraph has the opposite to the "Official Narrative" (as it was then)Peter Beswick says: August 20, 2018 at 8:58 am"From the car park, it was just a short walk through The Maltings shopping precinct to Zizzi, where they ate lunch before heading to The Mill pub for a drink."
The "Official Narrative" was never changed on Dr Davies, the Duck Boys park location, the cctv pair being one and the same as the bench people
And the Helicopter taking Yuia and / or Sergie changed 3 weeks l was corrected later in the leading MSM news provider the Spire FM website.
The Official Narrative is a tool of the Hoaxer and because of its unreliability it means Pants.
Independent Tested Evidence is what is forming the Facts, if they are false they can easily be refuted abd corrected by New Evidence eg Mill and Council CCTV
This is a Major Witness but the Official Narrative has forgotten about herPeter Beswick says: August 20, 2018 at 9:06 am"The source said the CCTV cameras covered the whole bar and had been seized by police.
"Skripal and his daughter sat just to the right of the front door.
"One of the young bar staff who was on a break sat really near them and has also been interviewed.""
Sorry both the "Source" and "One of the young bar staff"Rob Slane says: August 20, 2018 at 9:04 amAre Major witnesses.
So is Mill Manager Greg Townsend .
Lots of witnesses dropped out of the "Official Narrative" did they know the wrong type of stuff?
It's a HOAX !
I Will start to put a list of the elements of the Hoax together at the top.
Peter, this prompted me to look at Mr Townend's Facebook page and there was a link to a piece about his rabbits, which were locked up behind the police cordon, with no food or water. But thanks to his raising of awareness on social media, the police stepped in:Cascadian says: August 20, 2018 at 11:39 am"Luckily, the Luckily, Wiltshire Police stepped into the rescue the rabbits after pub manager's plea was shared more than 100 times across Facebook. The force today tweeted: 'We have an update on the rabbits stuck at an address in one of [the] cordons. They have now been given food and water and are OK. Thanks for everyone's concern.'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5485721/Race-save-floppy-eared-Salisbury-two.html
Sadly the cat and the guinea pigs at 47 Christie Miller Road were not treated with the same care. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" it seems.
Or, possibly, 'all police are dumb, but some are dumber than others'.Rob Slane says: August 20, 2018 at 12:14 pmOr, one could change 'dumb' to 'unfeeling', or 'callous', or some other derogatory term.
The cat and the guinea pigs in the Skripal's house would have been raising hell and the cat would have been trying everything in its repertoire to get out. Then there's the defecation and urination, the smell must have been quite ripe. So please tell me how the officers posted outside the Skripals and Townsend's ignored all this without comment to their superiors?
No idea. The two things that baffle me about the whole incident are:Miheila says: August 20, 2018 at 4:08 pma) If you look at the photos of police officers standing near the house, there are three windows that are open. I would have thought the cat could have got through one of those, and there's probably a catflap on the back door. The cat, if not the guinea pigs, could surely have gotten away.
b) Why on earth the authorities let on about the condition of the animals. They're not above being economical with the actualite. Why then did they not just say, "The cat and the guinea pigs are now safely residing at a secure location. They do not wish to avail themselves of the services of the RSPA, or Russian Embassy, and they ask that their privacy be respected."
Bizarre, no???
The affair of the pets was only made public when the Russian embassy began enquiring about them. Until then it was the Skripals' vet who'd contacted the police about the pets, and this happened within hours of the poisoning.john_a says: August 20, 2018 at 12:51 pmOnce it became public, the government had to come up with a plausible cover story – claiming that DSB had found them on 4th March. I don't believe this. The DEFRA vet allegedly involved was, as far as I know, never named, and the best they could come up with was that the Persian cat, Nash van Drake (brought over from Russia), had been found in a 'distressed' state, taken to PD, humanely put to sleep and incinerated. No vet should euthanise an animal simply because it is distressed. The guinea pigs (also from Russia) had been found dead due to lack of food and water were also taken off to PD. I don't believe this story. Rumours of a second cat, Masyanya, bought in England, began to circulate and it was assumed that this cat had escaped. Neighbours will know more.
I would like to think that all the pets survived and are now safe. This may even be true if the Skripals had been 'disappeared' according to a pre-planned operation. If so, the pets would have been moved elsewhere shortly before the fateful day, or on that very morning.
HMG hadn't taken into account a second cat, because they weren't aware of one, but there certainly were two cats and I have videos of them both. The embassy were only aware of one cat and two guinea pigs, information that I believe came from Viktoria. As for the rabbits and fish, another later rumour, perhaps they had been taken away earlier too. The whole pet story strikes me as very odd. Maybe Howard Taylor, the vet, knows more than we do. He said, "We phoned the police on day one to offer to help if they needed it. I thought it unlikely the police would have gone to the house and not done anything."
On 17th March it was only reported that the animals had been taken away. It was only on 6/7th April that HMG admitted that the guinea pigs were dead and the had been suffering.
According to The Sun: Taylor said of Mr Skripal: "He was a nice chap and we got on well. He never said he was in fear for his life. He used the vets for some years and I had seen his cat and his guinea pigs." Note: only one cat mentioned.
"We contacted the police straightaway upon hearing the news that Mr Skripal had been admitted to hospital, and a number of times afterwards, to make them aware of Mr Skripal's pets and their needs.
We contacted Porton Down – in case the animals may have been taken into isolation. We also offered to take care of Mr Skripal's pets in his absence. We were never contacted by the police or Porton Down in return regarding Mr Skripal's pets".If we believe this official story, then why haven't the RSPCA prosecuted the police fotr animal neglect? I'm disgusted by the RSPCA's apparent lack of interest in this affair. Their press officer, Nicola Walker said:
"It is very sad to hear that these animals have died in such tragic circumstances. However, we appreciate the emergency services were working in extreme and dangerous conditions in an incredibly fast-moving operation in an attempt to keep the public safe. We don't currently know the details of what happened but, as part of our ongoing working relationship with police, we would like to see if there is any learning for future operations."
Suzanne Norbury, their South-West Press Officer came up with the same wording, and:
"Emergency services working in extreme and dangerous conditions incredibly fast-moving operation an attempt to keep the public safe'I go along with this assessment: "It's a string of shallow excuses. It's nonsense. And it comes, not from the police themselves, but from the royal body supposed to prevent cruelty to animals".
According to one press report the pets were already removed from Skripal's house on 17 March: https://metro.co.uk/2018/03/17/poisoned-russian-agents-cat-guinea-pigs-taken-away-tests-7394516/Liane Theuer says: August 20, 2018 at 2:03 pmThis report may have been inaccurate, but nobody can claim that the existence of the pets was not known as early as mid March. The family vet also raised questions at an early stage. The report also shows that somebody thought the animals were worth "testing".
To me, this is one of the most bizarre inconsistencies in the whole case. Were the animals removed in mid March (alive) or early April (dead)? Why are there two different and mutually contradictory stories? What possible interest could be served by leaving the pets inside the house? And does it really mean that the police or counter-terror guys never entered the house before early April? After (supposedly) finding novichok on the door handle?
What's going on here? Did somebody calculate that a heartbreak story about starving pets would make us all hate Russia even more? If so, I suspect it backfired badly. British people love pets, and the story really just makes the British authorities look inhuman. Especially because it was the Russians who raised the issue.
Or is the whole sorry saga of the pets just a symptom of the British authorities losing interest in the whole affair and just trying to walk away from it in embarrassment?
Also, do the Skripals know the fate of their pets? What have they been told, and how did they take it?
As I wrote before, it looks like a punishment of Sergei. He really loved his pets. Or does anybody here has the impression, that the Skripals were treated like innocent victims ?Milda says: August 19, 2018 at 9:46 pmWith regard to the Amesbury case:Peter Beswick says: August 19, 2018 at 8:10 pm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wiltshire-salisbury-amesbury-major-incident-victims-dawn-sturgess-charlie-rowley-latest-a8431376.html
An excerpt:
A specialist "decontamination shower" was taken to the scene [Rowley's place] by Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service on Saturday [30 June], but a crew from Swindon later tweeted that "thankfully the incident wasn't serious and our decontamination shower wasn't required". The tweet has since been deleted.http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128233607/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/tvp/tvp_3_0110.pdfPeter Beswick says: August 19, 2018 at 10:07 pmSterling work as always Paul, thank you. The note was sent from Frank Beswick (no relation) to Dr David Kelly the week before he died. Beswick was a colleague of Kelly's at Porton DownPeter Beswick says: August 19, 2018 at 10:11 pmSorry I only have the B & W image
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/porton-down-scientists-escape-charges-for-poisoning-soldiers-95378.htmlLiane Theuer says: August 19, 2018 at 10:43 pmFrench bread spiked with LSD in CIA experiment: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.htmlPeter Beswick says: August 20, 2018 at 11:14 amThe writer of the letter was Frank Beswick (no relation) to Dr david Kelly, I don't know whether it was his own letter header (the crest and coat of arms) or that of the CDE Porton Down but this seems to indicate it was his own personal crest & ArmsPeter Beswick says: August 20, 2018 at 12:16 pm"Frank's scientific work did not interfere with his enthusiasm for voluntary work with the St John Ambulance, in which he was a senior figure. The promotion to the rank of commander brother within the Order of St John in 1995 delighted him and allowed him to design his own coat of arms. This included the badge of the Chemical Defence Establishment and a heart, a nod back to his early work in cardiac physiology."
I Hadn't realised before but Beswick and Kelly had worked on detoxing the island of Gruinard together
"In 1979, following the closure of the Microbiological Research Establishment, the small microbiology programme fell into his bailiwick and this stimulated the work to rehabilitate the Island of Gruinard, which had been contaminated with anthrax in the early 1940s."
https://thegenealogyguide.com/what-are-the-symbols-on-a-coat-of-armsMiheila says: August 20, 2018 at 4:44 pmWell, there's no heart in the arms on that letterhead so I can't see how they can be the arms that Beswick chose for himself. Nor do I understand why the crest is placed separately on the left. It's only the colour and charges in the escutcheon (shield) that makes a coat-of-arms unique to a particular family, individual or corporate body. In a sense, the rest is mere traditional ornament – the supporters, crest, helm, mottoDenise says: August 19, 2018 at 2:05 pmYes, I saw that Hasbrouck one when I did a quick search, but the chevron is not engrailed and the difference is crucial. It MUST be engrailed (the internet is still not the best way to search for these things). By the way the Hasbouck arms would is described as "Purpure, a chevron between three flambeaus or, flamed proper", so our friend's arms would then be:
"????, a chevron engrailed between three flambeaus (not torches) or (probably), flamed proper (probably)". I can't guess the field colour (????), and I'm guessing the likely colours of the torches.
I had forgotten about Ross Cassidy and was checking him out again after Miheila mentioned him for the list of people who know more that they are saying and found this from Sky News March 28 2018Miheila says: August 19, 2018 at 3:15 pmMr Cassidy, 61, has spent many hours with counter-terror detectives investigating the poisoning, but would not discuss the police operation.
Mr Cassidy got to know Sergei, his wife Lyudmila, his son Alexandr (who was known as Sasha) and Yulia.
Sergei spent a lot of time out of the country and there were times when I didn't see him, but he used to call me his English friend. He was very generous and never forgot my birthday, usually buying me an expensive bottle of whisky.
On Saturday 3 March, Mr Cassidy drove Mr Skripal to Heathrow to collect Yulia, who had moved back to Moscow and was visiting her father. It had been snowing and Sergei asked his pal if they could use his four-wheel-drive pick-up truck.
Last week, in a court ruling about the Skripals' medical needs, a judge quoted the consultant treating them in Salisbury district hospital: "The hospital has not been approached by anyone known to the patients to enquire of their welfare."
Mr Cassidy was upset by the suggestion there wasn't anyone who cared enough to want to go and see the Skripals.
He said: "That is misinformation, because we care. I asked the police several times if we could go and see them, quietly and away from the media, but I was told quite categorically that we were not allowed. We asked the question and the answer was 'no'.
"We were also upset that if his family and friends in Russia got to hear about this lack of concern it would cause them extra anguish."
My questions:
Why wouldn't Ross Cassidy discuss the police operation?
Why wouldn't the police let Sergei's best friend in England, visit him in hospital?
Did the SDH consultant know that the police were preventing Sergei and Yulia from having visitors?
If the SDH consultant did know that, then why didn't he tell the judge that?
I've shortened the story. Here's the link:
https://news.sky.com/story/salisbury-nerve-agent-attack-sergei-skripal-and-daughter-yulia-should-be-allowed-to-die-11306692Hi Denise,Anonymous says: August 19, 2018 at 3:54 pmI'm glad you picked up on his name. I included him, because outside the spook community, he's the only person in England who appears to have known the Skripal family well – all four. No wonder he was questioned for so long. I'll try to answer your questions as I see the situation. Just my opinion.
1.Why wouldn't Ross Cassidy discuss the police operation? Because he'd been threatened with dire consequences if he did. Whatever they were, they were most likely fabricated. 'National interest' springs to mind as the justification.
2. Why wouldn't the police let Sergei's best friend in England, visit him in hospital? Either because he wasn't there or because – later- they were afraid that Sergei would speak. I suspect he was never there at all.
3. Did the SDH consultant know that the police were preventing Sergei and Yulia from having visitors? Probably none of the SDH staff did.
4. If the SDH consultant did know that, then why didn't he tell the judge that? SDH declined to be represented in court due to feeling 'uncomfortable'. As I said in an earlier post, whoever that unnamed doctor was, he/she was 'highly unlikely' to be from SDH, but was rather an MoD 'specialist' brought in from elsewhere – PD or a military hospital.
Ross Cassidy may not have been willing to talk to the media, but I'm sure he said more to family and friends. Perhaps he'd be willing to talk to an impartial investigator, but then he might be too afraid of the consequences – which could have been direct threats to him or his family.
He needs to be asked about police activity and visitors at the Skripals, Sergei's pets (including the alleged rabbits and fish, not to mention Manyúnya, the cat who allegedly escaped), any concerns he may have had leading up to the fateful day, and so much more.
2. Why wouldn't the police let Sergei's best friend in England, visit him in hospital?Miheila says: August 19, 2018 at 4:56 pmIn the US and absent a signed directive by a patient that's either unconscious or incompetent, only next of kin are allowed to visit the patient. So, it would be the hospital that denies a friend access to a patient. No need for police involvement on this matter in this case.
The police, naturally, were looking for information on the patients and at any conceivable culprits. A double whammy for Cassidy.
According to Ross Casssidy, it was the police who told him that he wasn't allowed to visit Sergei. Have they any right to do this? If conscious and talking, Sergei could ask to see any visitor he liked, but this didn't happen – either because he wasn't there, didn't ask, had no friends or because friends had been prohibited from visiting. We know RC had tried to, but without success.Anonymous says: August 19, 2018 at 6:49 pmIn normal circumstances a hospital wouldn't be prohibiting visitors. Presumably RC had no means of contacting Sergei by phone either, and vice versa. As far as we know, Sergei has been kept incommunicado ever since 4th March, if indeed he is still alive. A very worrying situation.
According to Ross Casssidy, it was the police who told him that he wasn't allowed to visit Sergei. Have they any right to do this?Miheila says: August 20, 2018 at 6:12 amCassidy's Sky News interview was published on 3/28; so, his interview took place on or before 3/28. As of that date, both Yulia and Sergei were officially unconscious or not able to communicate meaningfully. At the direction of a hospital or for other reasons determined by law enforcement, police do have that right.
Also, we don't have any idea if at any time Yulia and/or Sergei requested to see Cassidy.
I see now. As you say the Skripals (or 'bench people') were still officially unconscious at that time, so it would make sense that no visitors were allowed.Jo says: August 20, 2018 at 9:34 amIf the Skripals were there and after they had regained consciousness, it's surely likely that they would have wanted visitors, especially a visit from Ross Cassidy, Sergei's best friend. But I'm pretty certain that the authorities would have prevented this at all costs, hence the lack of phone access and Cassidy's remarks.
Didn't stop family seeing Dawn sturgess. She couldn't consent to visitors either, but had them.Miheila says: August 20, 2018 at 4:47 pmReally? That's interesting.CharlieFreak says: August 20, 2018 at 9:35 pmThese exchanges about whether friends were allowed to visit the Skripals in hospital inspired me to refresh my memories of the gross deception of HMG regarding whether the Skripals had any relatives in Russia. At the High Court ruling by Mr Justice Williams on 22 March, granting permission to provide the OPCW with samples, he stated "Given the absence of any contact having been made with the NHS Trust by any family member and the limited evidence as to the possible existence of family members in Russia, I accept that it is neither practicable nor appropriate in the special context of this case to consult with any relatives [of the Skripals] who might fall into the category identified in s.4(7)(b) of the Act". ('The Act' being the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and s.4(7)(b) states that before delivering what is in an incapacitated person's best interests the person ruling (in this case Mr Justice Williams) must: take into account, in order to consult them, the views of anyone engaged in caring for the person or INTERESTED IN HIS WELFARE"). (my emphasis).CharlieFreak says: August 20, 2018 at 9:50 pmThis statement was delivered in spite of the fact that the Sun had carried an interview with Viktoria Skripal on 14 March about her concerns and desire to visit/make contact with the Skripals. And in spite of the fact that the Russian Embassy have records that on 6 March "the Embassy informed the FCO of the request it had received from Viktoria Skripal to provide information on the condition of her relatives. https://rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6481
Apologies for the misplacement of a couple of quotation marks in the above post. I usually intend to proof read what I have written before sending but didn't on this occasion as I am conscious that if I exceed a certain period of time composing my message (I haven't worked out what the time limit is) the system refuses to post it and I have to start again. That aside, I think my meaning is clear.Marie says: August 21, 2018 at 12:06 amfamilyPaul says: August 21, 2018 at 12:31 amFriends do not enjoy the same privileges to visit patients in hospital as family does. (This has been a huge factor in why same-sex marriage was so necessary.)
I think that is a very innappropriate comment but I shall say no more.Liane Theuer says: August 19, 2018 at 11:08 pmQuote : The colonel's close friend Ross Cassidy, who lives just a few doors from the property the Russian rented when he first arrived in Salisbury, said he "was not at liberty to talk."Miheila says: August 20, 2018 at 6:16 am
He declined to say whether his friend had spoken of fears for his life, adding: "It's a very sensitive investigation of some gravitas. I really am unable to divulge any information at the moment."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/did-treacherous-past-russian-colonel-finally-catch-salisbury/I agree with you that Cassidy knows more, but is forbidden to talk about.
Thanks Liane. Scary.Duncan says: August 19, 2018 at 6:06 pmI will reply to this, but simply as a test as I can't seem to post this afternoon, Maybe Rob is doing some site maintenance.Peter Beswick says: August 19, 2018 at 11:33 amI do not think SDH were involved in bad practices. The Terror Team and PD took over. In fact going to the courts for the second blood sample might have been required due to SDH "resistance". Anyone else with posting issues? If I see that you are posting then it must be my PC or possibly the big van with a dish on the roof at the end of my street.
A some point people stopped trying to prove the Earth was an irregular ball shape thing and was spinning around, doing laps of our nearest star at close on 66k mph.Paul says: August 19, 2018 at 12:45 pmThey didn't stop because it wasn't true, it had just been proven beyond doubt and there was other stuff to get on with.
Flat Earthers did come along, many having their own reasons, some just didn't want to believe we were on a ball floating in space and prefer to live with the idea that we live on a gurt plate.
The Hoax has been proven, the motive is not the most important feature, murderers go to jail whether their motives are known or not.
The most important thing is to identify who was responsible for Dawn Sturgess' death and bring them to Justice along with those that have attempted to cover up the wicked and depraved crime.
The motives may or may not flow from that process but it is rather academic at the moment to say the least.
Those responsible for Dawn's death are also responsible for the cover up of the Salisbury Incident. That is what led to Dawn's death.
People responsible include
Mrs May and some of her Ministers
Salisbury and Met Police Chiefs.
These are not wild "Conspiracy Theories". They are cold, hard facts. And we have the proof that will convict. Beyond reasonable doubt proof that those people I have mentioned above are involved in the death of Dawn Surgess and the cover up of the Salisbury and Amesbury Incidents.
Whenever governments bury facts, they are never up to any good. History is full of examples of facts been hidden and whenever the lid is finally raised, it is was never for a good reason:CharlieFreak says: August 19, 2018 at 1:48 pm
Vietnam war
JFK
Iraq WMD
etc
etcThe problem for TPTB this time is that they are in a different class to prior events – they are completely incompetent, utterly useless, self-important fools and obvious liars. This is what 'equal opportunity' hiring does! The good liars are gone.
Just look at all the 'officials' involved and wonder how they ever came to get the job
I continue to believe that this saga was the reason for Johnson's resignation. He could have survived May's Chequers debacle but he knows this story will ruin the rest of his career, so he has done a runner. He will get as much distance between himself and these events as he possibly can.
Paul,Peter Beswick says: August 19, 2018 at 1:56 pm
Once again, I agree with everything you say.Digressing to a different topic, it is the sheer "incompetence etc etc" that also explains the shambles that is 'Brexit'. And these incompetents – as I have alluded to elsewhere – are these days supported by many incompetent civil servants. I could see the way things were heading many years ago and that was one of my reasons for leaving the civil service 15 years ago after more than 20 years service in the company of many intelligent and honourable civil servants who were gradually retiring and were also expressing concerns about the deterioration in standards at all levels. I saw the rot begin when, about 20 years ago, the civil service opened up vacancies at all levels of responsibility to people with administrative or managerial experience but not civil service experience, so they hadn't acquired the ability to work alongside and in conjunction with legal advisers or technical experts (e.g. in my case, veterinarians and structural engineers at different times) which is an ability that develops and improves over an extended period of time and is integral to the successful functioning of the CS. When I joined the CS you would attend meetings and observe how such relationships developed and were used to achieve the intended aim many years before you yourself might find yourself having to do it. That no longer happens – people are just thrown in at the deep end, managed by incompetent staff and told to get on with it, with nobody providing knowledge-based 'quality control'. Whether or not you are a 'Remainer' or a 'Brexiteer' in principle, there was no hope for negotiations from the outset with the useless shower that we have in power (scope for a limerick there!). The Brexit considerations and negotiations have been in the hands of pathetic amateurs who are at sixes and sevens and who, after so many decades of relying on the EU to tell them what to do, have completely foregone any ability to think for themselves. That is the key problem, not the principle of Brexit, which could have resulted in far more encouraging prospects had it been in the right hands.
CFIt didn't happen by apathy, stupidity or accident it happened by design.CharlieFreak says: August 19, 2018 at 5:24 pmThe people that control our politicians and civil / public servants don't want troublesome people that can actually think or care
Peter,Paul says: August 19, 2018 at 1:57 pm
Exactly – one quality I found to be completely absent in 'newcomers' was initiative. I inherited someone at middle management level who had been in that particular policy job for about a year. I routinely asked him to draft a straightforward (but not 'standard') letter for one of our Ministers to send to an MP answering questions raised by a constituent about aspects of our Department's legislation. After all, that was part of his job description. As a middle manager responsible for that policy area he and even his subordinate officer should be able to quote chapter and verse and why it had been formulated in the way it had (e.g. 'based on Article X of EU Council Directive ABC'); at the very least he should have been able to work out the answers from information to hand or by consulting expert colleagues. We had been given the standard week or so to produce the draft reply which I could have knocked up in a couple of hours at most. So when I hadn't been given the draft for clearance by the morning of the required day and asked him about it he told me I had been unreasonable to ask him to do it without telling him what he needed to say! Needless to say, I knocked up the reply in a couple of hours but had to forego other tasks I was supposed to do that afternoon. When I joined the CS a Clerical Officer (2 grades below this chap) would have been asked to provide a first draft. I could bore you with other examples but, you'll be pleased to hear,I won't. Unfortunately that level of intellect is all too common nowadays.Charlie, You hit that nail very firmly, right on the head!Marie says: August 19, 2018 at 3:07 pmI have seen it myself. Not only have standards dropped but wherever you look, people just don't care anymore. Second rate is now 'good enough'.
Charlie, you've described an operational organizational change that isn't limited to public institutions. It exists in corporations as well and began to take hold about thirty years ago. Instead of promoting from within line staff – those who had spent years doing and moved up slowly in managerial positions as they demonstrated management skills – into the managerial ranks, the concept of 'universal manager' gained a foothold. As if managerial skills are a special talent and nothing more is required to manage any operation. In the US, business and government had to absorb all those newly minted MBAs and those people weren't about to start at the bottom of the operational ladder.CharlieFreak says: August 19, 2018 at 5:46 pmThe two best managers I ever had the pleasure to work for didn't complete an undergrad college degree. Yes, they did have people skills but they were also solid in their line technical skills as well. Highly respected by employees, colleagues, and in the industry. They had a firm grasp of the skill-sets of their employees, how trustworthy each of their employees were, and were immune to the sycophants.
Marie
Another change in infrastructure policy that had dire consequences and contributed to the problems you refer to was the principle that 'no one could be deemed a failure or to not have the aptitude to succeed with the appropriate training'. When I began my CS employment the annual report procedure was quite emphatic and honest about abilities. As a manager there was a range of five graded boxes you could tick against all aspects of performance, the lowest of which was 'not good enough', and, if repeated, this could warrant a warning from personnel (sorry, 'human resources' now) and potentially demotion. There was also a box where the manager had to enter what grade they thought the member of staff would have the inherent capability of achieving by the end of their career! For many people of all ages this was often the grade they were in at the time but they were realistic and honest enough to accept that it was probably right. It's arguable whether this last box served a positive purpose for the majority of staff but, rightly or wrongly, the intention was to motivate the best staff to continue in the CS rather than become despondent and quit. It was decided by forward thinking, liberal minded individuals many years ago now that annual reports should never say anything negative, and if anything negative needed to be said then the line management must be at fault for not overcoming their staff member's deficiencies.CharlieFreak says: August 21, 2018 at 10:12 amhttps://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1980/may/07/central-and-local-government
George,anotheridea says: August 19, 2018 at 10:54 am
Yep. Another problem we are creating for the future – although the Govt will welcome this 'problem' – is that in 'the good old days' and up until the 1990s EVERY single official communication whether written or verbal had to be recorded on a single officially registered uniquely numbered registry file. Each file, where documents and 'minutes' were sequentially numbered in date order, expanded to about 2.5″ thick and some subjects would have multiple A,B, C etc files. If someone in Office A sent a note to someone in Office B about a Govt issue it was obligatory to send a paper photocopy (or carbon copy) to HQ for them to place on the file. Nothing went unrecorded. Even internal discussions between staff would be summarised on a minute sheet afterwards, signed by the staff involved and placed on file. The system had to be run really strictly but it worked and we can look back and identify why certain decisions were made and by whom. But now, with the advent of computers and email the significance of keeping central records has gone and I can guarantee nobody in HQ has a complete historical record of all deliberations and communications. In years to come, conveniently for the Govt, key information about what has been going on in this case and other important matters will be missing.The motive – creating a rift between the Russian and Western states – is obvious. The perpetrators – including Yulia in the attack for publicity – too. It is possible that Skripal was following money laundering via real estate for Christopher Steele and the mafia did not like it. But the whole thing was planned for publicity.anidea says: August 19, 2018 at 9:28 amAnybody interested in tax havens and investment .
"Perhaps the greatest challenge, with respect to Russia and more generally, concerns the anonymity of global offshore finance. On this front, the US administration would find some cooperation from Moscow. Economically, the Russian treasury has been losing vast sums to offshores. Politically, the Kremlin is keen to strengthen its control over bureaucrats and oligarchs, two groups for whom offshore nest eggs provide an alternative to Putin's Russia. Since 2013, the Kremlin has pursued a "deoffshorization" campaign encouraging businesses to repatriate capital and stop registering companies offshore; additional legislation has restricted the Russian state employees' foreign asset ownership. A joint US-Russian effort, however limited, at ending the anonymity of corrupt cash flows in Western jurisdictions would serve the interests of both countries."
Christopher Steele worked for Glenn Simpson, and – ex Wallstreet Journal – Glenn Simpson is a specialist on Russian corruption and Western money laundering. Transcript of Glenn Simpsons testimony – interesting in what he says about Bill BrowderMarie says: August 19, 2018 at 2:20 pm
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4345537/Fusion-GPS-Simpson-Transcript.pdfIn the interests of accuracy, Simpson has never claimed to have expertise on Russia. His major calling card is the series of investigative articles he wrote on Ukraine, circa 2005-2008, when he was a WSJ reporter. In 2014 or 2015 he was hired by Prevezon, the plaintiff in a UK lawsuit against Browder, and later a defendant in a DOJ lawsuit. When Fusion GPS was hired by the Washington Beacon to do oppo research on Trump, he knew nothing about Trump. It was after the Beacon contract ended and approximately two months after the DNC/HRC campaign hired Fusion and they outsourced the Trump-Russia oppo research to Steele. (Personally, I suspect that Steele had been engaged on this long before then but not by Fusion.)Miheila says: August 19, 2018 at 7:40 amDylan Martinez who operated the camera at Yulia's post-Novihoax debut, and who is described as the chief Reuters photographer for UK and Ireland, has an amusing quote heading his profile page: "When editing photos I look for the truth told in the most beautiful way."Miheila says: August 19, 2018 at 7:52 amYulya Skripal, the embodiment of truth and beauty!
I forgot to mention that Mr Martinez covers "news, sport and the odd feature". Regardless of a possible fake tracheotomy scar, I suppose his Skripal assignment was highly likely to be the oddest feature of his career. https://widerimage.reuters.com/photographer/dylan-martinezAnonymous says: August 19, 2018 at 7:35 am'In another curious detail in the filing, the special counsel team said Papadopoulos had been given $10,000 in cash "from a foreign national whom he believed was likely an intelligence officer of a foreign country." The filing noted that the country was "other than Russia." ' CNNLiane Theuer says: August 19, 2018 at 8:23 amMueller strangely coy about who gave Papa 10k in cash. Was he an Orbis collector too?
UK Government and intelligence all over the place :Quote : Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors. Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York Times describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI. (..)
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty. "George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there, but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing.
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking-themselves/Anonymous-1 says: August 19, 2018 at 5:16 am
PAGE 3 OF 4Anonymous-1 says: August 19, 2018 at 5:15 am
Within 30 minutes (15.47 to 16.15) they are in critical condition. Charlie Rowley describes a similar time-frame for Dawn Sturgess.7th March – Scotland Yard Chief Medical Officer statement
"As your Chief Medical Officer, my message to the public is that this event poses a low risk to us, the public, on the evidence we have."METHOD OF DELIVERY
Spray: too risky, the assailants run the risk of contaminating themselves. Also the doctor said "There was no sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripal's face or body".High pressure syringe: the pressure is so great the vaccine (or nerve agent) is pumped through the skin and immediately enters the blood stream. The beauty of this method of delivery is there's no evidence. I think the assailants grabbed them from behind and delivered the nerve agent directly into the jugular vein, the site of the attack being at the corner of G&T'S. The Skripals wouldn't have known what had just happened to them.
DS BAILEY
DS Bailey will have attended a First-Aid course, so his first action would be to loosen any clothing round Sergei's neck and clear his airway. If you look at photos of Sergei, he's got quite a thick neck, so DS Bailey probably had to fiddle a bit with his clothing and this is probably how he was contaminated. He'd unknowingly come into direct contact with a small amount of residue nerve agent at the delivery site.ANTON UTKIN former UN Chemical Weapons Expert in Iraq
Worlds Apart Interview 29th April 2018 – Breaking with Conventions?"Why was Novichok agent determined undecomposed only in the blood of Yulia Skripal? It was undecomposed. It's supposed to be decomposed under the metabolism of the body, but they found undecomposed agent in her blood, but not in the blood of Sergei Skripal, who got heavier exposure to the chemical agent. That was very strange because it is not clear how it happened that a fresh agent was in Yulia's blood."
Sounds like he suspects Yulia received a second dose while in hospital. She was making an unexpected recovery, partly because she's healthy and partly because of the medical treatment, so somebody gave her another dose.
Sergei wasn't expected to survive because as Anton Utkin said, he "got heavier exposure to the chemical agent", that combined with any existing health issues, he was simply expected to die.
PAGE 2 OF 4Anonymous-1 says: August 19, 2018 at 5:13 am
"Georgia Pridham, 25, also saw the couple slumped on the bench. She said: "He was quite smartly dressed. He had his palms up to the sky as if he was shrugging and was staring at the building in front of him. He had a woman sat next to him on the bench who was slumped on his shoulder. He was staring dead straight. He was conscious, but it was like he was frozen and slightly rocking back and forward.""Graham Mulcock said: "The paramedics seemed to be struggling to keep the two people conscious. The man was sitting staring into space in a catatonic state".
"Destiny Reynolds, 20, who works in Ganesha Handicrafts in the centre, said: "I saw quite a lot of commotion – there were two people sat on the bench and there was a security guard there. They put her on the ground in the recovery position, and she was shaking like she was having a seizure. It was a bit manic. There were a lot of people crowded round them. It was raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them over them."
Other reports: "Two police officers helped the pair before emergency services were called at 4.15pm."
Emergency services: "There were several emergency calls."
Channel 4 "Russian Spy Assassination", 26th March 2018
Male witness: "There was a man being sick on the floor, leant over, and a woman laying on the floor. I didn't see the woman, she was surrounded by paramedics, but they both looked fairly ill."EFFECTS OF NERVE AGENT POISONING
Craig Murray's article Knobs and Knockers quote from a scientist "Unlike traditional poisons, nerve agents don't need to be added to food and drink to be effective. They are quite volatile, colourless liquids (except VX, said to resemble engine oil). The concentration in the vapour at room temperature is lethal. The symptoms of poisoning come on quickly, and include chest tightening, difficulty in breathing, and very likely asphyxiation. Associated symptoms include vomiting and massive incontinence. Eventually, you die either through asphyxiation or cardiac arrest".EVENTS FROM 15.47 ONWARDS
15.47 CCTV footage, if you analyse the shape of Sergei's head and hairline with clearer pictures it matches. Two witnesses describe Yulia as having blonde hair. At this point, neither is showing any signs of nerve agent poisoning.16.03 (16 minutes later) Freya Church sees them slumped on the bench.
Minutes later, both are becoming critically ill. From witness statements, Yulia is worse affected so the doctor attends to her and DS Bailey attends to Sergei. The reports say two police officers, but I think it was the security guard.
PAGE 1 OF 4Denise says: August 19, 2018 at 2:40 am
I think I've worked out how it was done and why DS Bailey was the only other person affected. It's all down to METHOD OF DELIVERY. The attack took place between 15.47 and 16.03 near to where they were found. The door handle is a diversionary technique to draw attention away from this. There's someone else calling themselves Anonymous, I'll call myself Anonymous-1 see what happens.TIMINGS
13.40 Arrive at car park
Feed ducks and walk to pub
Mill Pub (30 minutes)
Walk to Zizzi's
(40 mins have elapsed from arriving at the car park to arriving at Zizzi's)
14.20-15.35 Zizzi's (1 hour 15 minutes, there's specific timings)
(12 minutes after leaving Zizz's they are picked up on CCTV)
15.47 CCTV footage (older man with blonde haired younger woman with red bag)
(16 minutes later they fall ill from nerve agent poisoning)
16.03 Freya Church see them slumped on bench
(5 other witnesses all see them on bench, with two 'police' officers and a doctor in attendance)
16.15 Emergency service call(s)WITNESS STATEMENTS FROM NEWS REPORTS
FREYA CHURCH: "Sixteen minutes later [that is, after being seen on CCTV], personal trainer Freya Church, 27, came across the victims slumped on a bench. She said they seemed 'out of it' and assumed they were on drugs. "It was a young, blonde and pretty girl and it was definitely the man that's been pictured in the news – the guy that's a spy. She was passed out and he was looking up to the sky and I tried to get eye contact to see if they were okay. They didn't seem with it. To be honest I thought they were just drugged out as they were in a weird state. There are lots of homeless people here so I just thought they were homeless."FEMALE DOCTOR: "A doctor who was one of the first people at the scene has described how she found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting and fitting. She had also lost control of her bodily functions. The woman, who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father. She said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripal's face or body. The doctor said she had been worried she would be affected by the nerve agent but added that she "feels fine."
"Witness Jamie Paine told the BBC yesterday: "Her eyes were just completely white, they were wide open, but just white and she was frothing at the mouth. And then the man went stiff, his arms stopped moving and still looking dead straight."
Now here is someone who knows where Yulia is. The photographer in the Reuters video is of Yulia making her statement is Dylan Martinez.Miheila says: August 19, 2018 at 3:20 amReuters written reporters may know where she is as well. Reporting is by Guy Faulconbridge. Additional reporting by Alistair Smout. Editing by Simon Robinson and Nick Tattersall. There will be a video cameraman who knows as well and a video editor.
Do you think you might write to them Rob and ask where she is?
And if they wont tell you, what is their reason for not telling you?
It will be interesting to see how they reply.
Not necessarily where Yulia is, Liane, but where she was at that time. The difference is crucial.Denise says: August 19, 2018 at 7:00 amAs you know any information we can get is useful Miheila. We could learn a lot about who has Yulia, by were she was for the Reuters video and yes you are correct to suggest that she probably isn't there anymore. Thank you. I think they will slip up soon, its getting to be a way too tangled web now with far to many people to keep silent.Miheila says: August 19, 2018 at 7:27 amSo tangled, Denise, that I feel it's tangling the neurones in my brain!Anonymous says: August 19, 2018 at 7:49 amDoes anyone know when exactly that video was recorded (rather than released), after all, the statement was mysteriously undated? Could there have been some kind of embargo on its release until a later date?
Yulia was allegedly released on 10th April, 43 days before the video was broadcast. According to The Sun, a 'source' claimed that she'd been released from SDH into another hospital: ''She is in hospital on a military base for her own protection and to monitor her health." Was the video recorded at that military base?
Was it USAF Fairford?Could the CIA have pre-empted MI6's hasty plans for the disappearance of the Skripals? Perhaps MI6 had nothing planned. Maybe it was a CIA operation from the beginning. I'll need to think about these scenarios a lot more.
Miheila, if you listen to the Daily Mail version of the video there are a lot of police sirens at the end including bull horns. That and the aircraft noise would point to London. It could be US Ambassadors residence in Regents Park.In my opinion, it was a rogue FBI op to stop "our guy" going back to Russia.
I think UK authorities knew it was happening and organised medical cavalry to save Skripals.
HMG are caught out, to admit it would be proof MI6 surrogates were interfering in US presidential election.
So the Feds made it look like Russia and HMG have to follow the pretence.Patrick Mahony says: August 19, 2018 at 8:17 am
In my scenario some of them could be genuine. If the emergency services were told extra medical/police/fire resources were available for that Sunday due to the " CBW exercise" that was going on they wouldn't publicly question it.Peter Beswick says: August 19, 2018 at 12:16 am
Maybe when the Skripals were on the bench they thought it was not "real world" and that is why they dashed in.
But I think HMG knew Yulia had come to extricate Sergei and knew rogue elements in UK and US "intelligence community" were trying to assassinate him.Rob Willing I will make a heart felt plea.Cascadian says: August 19, 2018 at 10:32 amAny contributors on here offering an alternative theory to the Hoax should be aware (although they may be blissfully unaware) that the Hoax has been proven.
It is a fact.
So before putting out new theories please recognise that fact and possibly try the refute / debunk / disemble the fact before you put forward your take.
Don't get me wrong (although a few will) I think that brainstorming and testing theories is fine, more than fine it is essential to test ideas and testament to the progress that this blog has contributed, advanced and assisted public understanding in the unravelling of the case.
If you have an alternative theory please let it coincide with at least a few facts.
@PeterPRFilms says: August 18, 2018 at 11:07 pm
The scientific method (a la Popper): observe, deduce, theorize, predict (i.e. show how the theory matches/predicts the things observed). And, if necessary, adduce (i.e. defend the hypothesis).What is never done is to insist dogmatically that one's pet theory is the only explanation. This is because it is the duty of every scientifist to, having produced a theory, seek to demolish it. You aren't doing that, Peter, instead you are challenging others to demolish it.
I wonder at your motives.
I think fact that Sergei Skripal an ex spy may have confused issues? He may or may not still have been actively doing intelligence but all evidence points to accidental poisoning by drug addicts sleeping rough.
1. Reported that 40/50 rough sleepers including drug addicts, living in area at time of Skripal poisoning.
2. Contaminated public lavatories and a "drug den" in park.
3. Council blocked off rough sleepers area and rehomed drug addicts after Skripal poisoning.
4. Charlie Rowley rehoused at about that time?
5. OPCW not permitted to analyse all ingredients associated with poisoning which they say makes it very difficult identifying substance
6. Two men (Kim Ferguson and Jamie Knight) forced their way through police barricade to get to bench where Skripals had been sitting
6. Dawn Sturgess's poisoning looks like classic One Pot Shake and Bake methamphetamine accident. Fact that fire brigade called and she was in bath suggests explosion and burns.
7. One Pot Shake and bake produces large amounts of toxins which are dumped. Public loos in park reported contaminated and report of a drug den there.
8. Skripals, Sturgess and Rowley did not respond to naloxone so not opioid poisoning, this fits with it being poison from waste left from one pot shake and bake meth.
9. Salisbury Hospital Doctor said no-one was suffering from nerve agent poisoning.
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2018 | www.theblogmire.com
Rob Slane says: August 18, 2018 at 10:12 pm
Key quote from Sara Carter's revelations about text messages from Christopher Steele to Bruce Ohr in October 2017:uncle tungsten says: August 18, 2018 at 11:19 pm"Steele notes that he is concerned about the stories in the media about the bureau delivering information to Congress 'about my work and relationship with them. Very concerned about this. *People's lives may be endangered*.'"
https://saraacarter.com/breaking-bruce-ohr-texts-emails-reveal-steeles-deep-ties-to-obama-doj-fbi/
Now, this might seem a bit of an aside, but does anyone reading this blog have any idea when Yulia last came to England prior to 3rd March this year? I'm trying to get an idea of whether she is likely to have had any idea prior to this visit of what her father was involved in, or whether she is likely to have learnt about this on this particular visit.
Thanks Rob and we are all grateful for your capacity to harness all the contributors into a sane dialogue.Anonymous says: August 20, 2018 at 6:54 pmMotive indeed:
There are the pleadings by Steele to Ohr for reassurance that the "firewall" is solid! Not sure what that intends but surely there are a few firewalls in this saga going all the way back on the US side to the favorite candidate, the candidates party, the party legal team that employed Fusion GPS, Fusion GPS itself, Orbis, Steele, Sergei, and perhaps Yulia. What might have been her potential role other than innocent visitor. We now have a clearer view of her employment trajectory. I would bet the firewalls on the UK side are fully aluminium clad too, and I anticipate this site and a few other emerging lines of inquiry will penetrate those.
The furious mother in law angle is a good one and potentially worth a serious look.
Sometimes murders deliver conveniences to unforeseen parties.
The overreach of British interference in the USA election and May's complicity in that exercise needed a very good redeeming cover and here is a dandy.
The mafiosi angle cannot be ruled out and nor can the Ukrainian possibility given their intense penetration of the EU playing ground. Perhaps Sergei was investigating things there too and annoyed the new mafiosi now free to roam.
But I am sure that closer to home there are others that employed Orbis to do interesting work. How's Bill Browder these days?
"Firewalls":Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 6:55 pmhttps://vault.fbi.gov/d1-release/d1-release/view
>Who signed pg 380? Peter Strzok
>Who signed pg 389? Andrew McCabe
>Who signed pg 391? Rod Rosenstein
Firewalls:
Strzok
Rosenstein
McCabe
ComeyOnly Rosenstein is left
Me again!Paul says: August 20, 2018 at 7:11 pmCorrection – >Who signed pg 392? Lisa PagePage was the fourth firewall (not Comey), but she is already gone too.
If Rosenstein knew of Steele's relationship with the Ohrs prior to signing FISA, he already knew that he was signing a BS FISA application – which would be perjury. But if Rosenstein was a 'firewall', it becomes an attempted coup and sedition awkward.
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2018 | www.theblogmire.com
Denise says: August 19, 2018 at 12:54 am
The people that know more than they are saying:Paul says: August 19, 2018 at 1:04 amNick Bailey
Charlie Rowley
Helicopter pilot
Helicopter paramedics
Land ambulance paramedics
Doctors at Salisbury Hospital
Nurses at Salisbury Hospital
Head of Porton Down
Porton Down scientists
Porton Down workersThese may know more than they are saying:
The Mill staff
Zizzi's staff
Main stream media journalists (D noticed)
Salisbury Journal journalists (D noticed)It only takes one to talk for the whole house of cards to come crashing down.
Please feel free to add to this list.
All the named witnessesMiheila says: August 19, 2018 at 3:37 am
The ebola nurse
Whoever orgainsed the rapid response from the emergency vehicles
All the police 'searching' for something
Everyone who has seen the CCTV
The guys in hazmat suits on 4 MarchDozens and dozens of people
People 'highly likely' to know the most, and are saying nothing:
Chris Steele
Pablo Miller (aka Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo)
MI6 people
GCHQ people
Probably CIA, NSA, US State Dept, SBU, Mossad, etc. (take your pick!)
MI5 people, including any watchers who may have been deployed
FCO peoplePeople who know more than they are saying:
certain people in the Russian Foreign Ministry
GRU, FSB, FAPSI peoplePeople who may know more, and may be willing to speak:
Various Salisbury witnesses, named and unnamed
Ross Cassidy
The Filmers of Distillery Farm??
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2018 | www.theblogmire.com
Bob says: August 19, 2018 at 4:03 am
Regarding "the/a motive", wouldn't Putin's alleged statement of vengeance towards the defector, Skripal, be enough to convince the UK government of there being at least "a motive" if not also "the motive"? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/traitors-will-kick-bucket-vladimir-putin-swore-revenge-poisoned/francesca says: August 19, 2018 at 4:50 am
Also, I guess I need it spelled out for me. Why would Skripal's assassination put an end to all future spy swaps?
I don't think Putin did it -- he's not so foolish as to have such poor timing politically -- but I'm not so sure the UK government can't legitimately show a possible Russian motive, for the purpose of helping the UK's own political timing.Lastly, the commentators' list of complicit conspirators is just too long to make this a real conspiracy.
Putin didn't promise revenge on spies, he basically said that such traitors would die miserable deaths because they had no homeland and had lost their soul. There is a very full answer on this website if you scroll down https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40900/did-putin-threaten-to-have-traitors-assassinatedRob Slane says: August 19, 2018 at 6:51 amLike most of Putin's speeches this one has been deconstructed , mistranslated, then put back together to give the necessary slant
There has never ever been a case of a spy who has been pardoned as part of a spy swap(as Skripal was)then later assassinated.And the last time that Moscow harmed the child of a target was when Trotsky's son was killed in one of Stalin's purges. This all can be found in a Sunday Times article , but be aware there is a pay wall
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/salisbury-hit-on-sergei-skripal-would-rewrite-the-rules-of-espionage-6t89w9v9cHi Bob,Bob says: August 19, 2018 at 3:18 pmBut the UK Government must know that Putin's alleged promise to "choke" traitors was nothing of the sort. It was in fact one of the most blatant propaganda pieces I have ever seen.
The video in which he allegedly said this appeared on BBC's Newsnight and can be seen at this link:
But the original can be found at his 2010 Q&A session when he was PM. The relevant section begins at just after 3 hours 12 minutes, and lasts for about 3 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8B9wGcDWVI
As you will see, his answer is basically the diametric opposite to the one the BBC piece leads you to believe. They basically took what he said, hacked it about to extract the bits they didn't want their audience to hear, and then put it back together (with some scary music) to make it sound like he said something he didn't actually say.
Rob, thanks for the satisfactory explanation of Newsnight's deceitfulness. It appears that Putin didn't give his potential future defector-spies a pass while at the same time shaming those caught at it as being like a Judas. I wonder, though, how those thinking about possibly selling out would read Putin's deflecting the former practice of assassination decisions as resting on a head of state. He said it had evolved to being the decision of a special group in the security services. Of course he (probably rightly) dissociates his government from now operating that way. How are we to know apart from there being sufficient evidence to the contrary? But if Putin and his security services are in truth completely innocent I don't see how his response could have been any better.Marie says: August 19, 2018 at 6:35 pmI still don't see why an assassination would put the damper on future spy swaps. Help my reasoning abilities.
Regarding the claim of there being a growing multitude of unwilling conspirators, I wonder if this isn't a case, at times, of commentators taking every thought captive to the obedience of "The Conspiracy Theory".
It might be beneficial for some agency to create a very public internet place where those caught up as witnesses to the case can come to make their clear statements or confessions without fear of reprisal. Possible attempts at reprisal could also be broadcast.
I still don't see why an assassination would put the damper on future spy swaps. Help my reasoning abilities.Paul says: August 19, 2018 at 7:48 pmTradition, it's (p)art of the deal. Country A holds a country B spy and country B holds a country A spy. Both want its own spy back home for any one or more reasons. Why would country A release the spy it holds in exchange for the one that country B holds if country B reserved the option to at a later date take out Country A's spy? Spy (or alleged spy) swaps only work with an implicit agreement that there will be no retaliation by either country against the individuals included in the swap.
All the ins and outs involved in a spy swap are carefully considered. The swap must appear as of equal value to the two countries. The inclusion of Skripal in the US-Russia spy swap appeared odd to those that follow such matters as he had been a UK asset and by 2010 not of any particularly high-value to the UK. Nothing further has been said about this by the US, UK, or Russia; so, we're free to concoct a devious plot where none existed.
Marie, Reading what you wrote just triggered a thought usually a spy swap is where, say, US spies caught and imprisoned in Russia, are exchanged for Russian spies caught and imprisoned in the US. Each country gets their own nationals back. The individuals were guilty of espionage in another country and get to go home.Marie says: August 19, 2018 at 9:46 pmThat is not what Sergei was. He was a Russian national, caught and imprisoned in Russia for treason. How did he ever get to become part of a spy swap?
Why would the UK want to take him? He had no more value to them, he had already been paid for the information he had handed over so why would the UK agree to take him and pay for his upkeep? What did the UK get out of the deal?
On the other side of Sergei's deal in 2010, Russia got Anna Chapman back – a Russian national caught and imprisoned in the US
Have we been fed a pile of BS about what or who Sergei was?
Wondered if anyone would catch that oddity in the Skripal case. Likely contributed to the head-scratching back in 2010. However, Skripal wasn't the only Russian national released to the west in that swap. (And I'm not sure all those held by the US were Russian nationals – nor interested enough to research that.) We're weren't fed BS about Skripal because he was hardly ever mentioned at all. Remember, Skripal was a walk-in and for the money. Not important enough to recruit and while he had access to confidential personnel lists he was useful. (Not as useful as Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were to the USSR but those two were also walk-ins and the money is important to both.)Anonymous says: August 19, 2018 at 10:15 pmMy two guesses on this – probably not worth anything –
1) Russia held too few spies to make the deal work. So, he threw in some that were of no value to Russia and would be of some interest to the west to sweeten the offer. As Obama was already under criticism for giving up more than he got in his deals, he needed numbers (spies) to make this one look okay. The UK was told and not asked to accept Skripal. He, after all, was their guy even if he'd screwed up and exposed the fake rock and blew up the UK Moscow spy ring (I may be exaggerating on this point). IOW didn't need, didn't want, and had no use for Skripal. (Also meant they had devote assets to insure he hadn't been turned into a triple-agent.)
2) The UK asked the US to get Skripal out because they still needed to know exactly what Skripal had told the Russian investigators. That would mean that they weren't competent enough to figure that out and/or Skripal was given a far larger role in the UK spy operation than Russia was able to determine.
I don't have a high opinion of MI6, the CIA, etc., but it's still tough for me to buy scenario #2. So, I've been going with #1.
So the UK was fulfilling its role as a vassal statePaul says: August 19, 2018 at 10:16 pmYou comment just gave me another thought. Cameron became PM in May 2010 and the spy swap was in July 2010, so Cameron was then PM. It is a tradition (not a rule) that the next Tory PM hands out a knighthood to the previous Tory PM – and May hasn't done that yet I wonder why?
The last time it happened (and that was the first time to the best of my knowledge) was Margaret Thatcher who refused to give one to Ted Heath – he had to wait until 1992 for John Major to give him one (if you will pardon the expression!)
At that time, apart from the fact that Thatcher despised Heath politically, it was a very poorly kept secret that Thatcher's refusal was driven by her knowledge that Heath was a paedophile.
Nothing to do with the Skripals but it will be interesting to see how long Cameron has to wait.
That was me! Forgot to put my name in again!Marie says: August 19, 2018 at 11:00 pmSo the UK was fulfilling its role as a vassal stateMiheila says: August 20, 2018 at 7:17 amOnly if there's truth in my fiction.
May was Home Secretary as of May 2010; so, also probably on board with the spy swap -- or it was too far along to being a done deal for she and Cameron to nix it when they came into office.
It was the British government who insisted on Skripal being included in the spy-swap made between 10 'illegals' (placed as sleepers in the USA at the time, and led by Anna Chapman) and four national traitors.Marie says: August 20, 2018 at 5:14 pmThese four were of more use to the West than the 10 illegals. Alexander Zaporozhsky and Igor Sutyagin had spied spying for the USA. Gennady Vasilenko was involved in illegal weapons possession, and the reasoning for him being included in the swap has never been disclosed.
"Skripal is considered the more important of the two as far as Britain's security and intelligence agencies are concerned. He is likely to be debriefed for weeks, if not months. He will be given a home and pension if he decides to stay in Britain. The future of Sutyagin [in Britain] is less certain He could yet return to Russia".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/11/british-security-services-debrief-russians-spy-swap
Pardon, but where does it say that the UK requested Skripal in the US-Russia spy swap?Bob says: August 20, 2018 at 1:38 pmTwo Russians exchanged in a high-profile "spy swap" were today being debriefed by MI5 and MI6 officers at a secret location close to London.
SOP – wouldn't want to let a triple-agent into the country.
Skripal is considered the more important of the two as far as Britain's security and intelligence agencies are concerned. He is likely to be debriefed for weeks, if not months. He will be given a home and pension if he decides to stay in Britain.
Well, Skripal did help to blow up the UK's fake rock spy communication set-up in Moscow. And the UK wouldn't pass on an opportunity to have Skripal tell them exactly what he'd spilled to Russian authorities (likely everything). But that "home and pension" not only fills in a gap about what is publicly known about Skripal but also that the UK accepted that they were stuck with him as part of the spy swap.
Britain and the US say they have got more out of the spy swap than Russia because the four men released by Moscow were far more serious individuals than the 10 agents handed over by the US.
Do you think the UK and US would say they got the short end of the stick in the deal? Superficially (the ordinary person's level of geo-political understanding), getting for Russian four nationals (three convicted of espionage, spying for the west and serving sentences of 15 to 18 years) for eleven low value Russians held by the west doesn't look like the better part of the bargain. And in the US this could easily have become another anti-Obama rallying cry for the GOP and their right-wing crazies. That seemed not to have happened. Probably a too esoteric for that audience.
This is interesting:
One of those released to the US, Alexander Zaporozhsky, was a KGB colonel whose spying for the US is understood to have led to the unmasking of Robery Hanssen, an FBI officer, and Aldrich Ames, a CIA officer, two of Russia's most important spies in the US.
If true, the CIA and FBI were in debt to Zaporozhsky and the official FBI and CIA stories of the unmasking of these two moles if fiction. I suspect that the above claim is the fiction. Designed to add weight to why Zaporozhsky was accepted in the swap and preserved the secrecy of whatever info he had actually passed to the US.
For now, I'll stick with my guess that the UK wasn't keen on being stuck with Skripal.
Thanks for your reply, Marie. Just so you know, I don't think the evidence supports the poisoning having been ordered by Putin. I would only contend that if he had ordered it Putin would have been anticipating a positive effect. It would have limited the number of UK spy candidates willing to risk spying against Russia. (Putin probably wouldn't have foreseen the success of the sanctions campaign.) But, in my opinion, both parties –in the future -- would continue their interest in spy swaps. In spite of the negative consequences of exposing them to murder, why not get ones spy back and better protect them?Miheila says: August 20, 2018 at 4:59 pmRussia (government, businesses and people) doesn't consider the sanctions campaign very successful at all.Milda says: August 19, 2018 at 8:15 pmIt might be that an imprisoned spy will prefer to complete his prison term than to get swapped and thus to become a potential target for assassination.Miheila says: August 20, 2018 at 5:13 pmI wonder what Sergei is thinking now. His daughter's life is ruined and may be in danger.
I often wonder about how they and their family in Russia feel about this awful affair. We tend to forget the human side of the story, but we shouldn't. Sergei, from all I hear about him, seemed a decent kind of man. He may have been foolish for being talked into betraying his country by Pablo Miller, but I don't see him as a bad man at heart. Maybe he was desperate for money at the time or goinf throufgh a bad patch which would have made him more susceptible to manipulation. Who knows?Marie says: August 20, 2018 at 5:19 pmBut now his acts have somehow caused lives to fall apart and much I'm sure suffering. It's my view that all governments are essentially evil (greedy, ruthless and self-serving), and don't work in the interests of ordinary people – often working against them. The evidence of history bears this out.
Craig Murray has been adamant that PM didn't recruit Skripal and that Skripal was known as a walk-in. (It is generally accepted that at some point and for some undefined period of time that PM was Skripal's handler.)Denise says: August 19, 2018 at 7:11 amA "nice" man doesn't endanger the lives of his colleagues for money.
Hi Bob,Paul says: August 19, 2018 at 12:23 pmAll those on the list aren't conspirators as you think of them. More like further victims of the conspiracy. They dont know the whole story. They each only know a tiny bit of it. A bad bit, but have been frightened so badly that they are scared to tell that little bit, which will lead to the conspiracy unfolding. And make no mistake this is a conspiracy, a swamp conspiracy of the tallest order.
Bob, it is not a list of "list of complicit conspirators" – it is a list of 'people who know more than they have said'.They are not all involved in a conspiracy, they are witnesses to the conspiracy. They each have a story to tell that would open the lid on a part of what happened – not the whole story.
Are they silent? I don't know, the MSM has not tried to ask them what they know, maybe they will be happy to talk, if anyone asks.
Mrs Cooper told Rob that Sergei was wearing leather jacket and jeans – she was happy to tell what she knew, all Rob had to do was ask. The Sun newspaper which broke the 'duck' story and went to interview Mrs Cooper did not even bother to ask that question – or if they did they did not reveal what she said.
The conspiracy continues through indifference of the MSM – sooner of later that will change.
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk
On 8 July 2018 a lady named Kirsty Eccles asked what, in its enormous ramifications, historians may one day see as the most important Freedom of Information request ever made. The rest of this post requires extremely close and careful reading, and some thought, for you to understand that claim.
Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,
1: Why did BBC Newsnight correspondent Mark Urban keep secret from the licence payers that he had been having meetings with Sergei Skripal only last summer.
2: When did the BBC know this?
3: Please provide me with copies of all correspondence between yourselves and Mark Urban on the subject of Sergei Skripal.
Yours faithfully,
Kirsty Eccles
The ramifications of this little request are enormous as they cut right to the heart of the ramping up of the new Cold War, of the BBC's propaganda collusion with the security services to that end, and of the concoction of fraudulent evidence in the Steele "dirty dossier". This also of course casts a strong light on more plausible motives for an attack on the Skripals.
Which is why the BBC point blank refused to answer Kirsty's request, stating that it was subject to the Freedom of Information exemption for "Journalism".
10th July 2018
Dear Ms Eccles
Freedom of Information request – RFI20181319
Thank you for your request to the BBC of 8th July 2018, seeking the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
1: Why did BBC Newsnight correspondent Mark Urban keep secret from the licence payers that he had been having meetings with Sergei Skripal only last summer.
2: When did the BBC know this?
3: Please provide me with copies of all correspondence between yourselves and Mark Urban on the subject of Sergei Skripal.
The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of 'journalism, art or literature.' The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you. Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act if it is held for 'purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature".
The BBC is not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC's output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.
The BBC is of course being entirely tendentious here – "journalism" does not include the deliberate suppression of vital information from the public, particularly in order to facilitate the propagation of fake news on behalf of the security services. That black propaganda is precisely what the BBC is knowingly engaged in, and here trying hard to hide.
I have today attempted to contact Mark Urban at Newsnight by phone, with no success, and sent him this email:
To: mark.urban@bbc.co.uk
Dear Mark,
As you may know, I am a journalist working in alternative media, a member of the NUJ, as well as a former British Ambassador. I am researching the Skripal case.
I wish to ask you the following questions.
1) When the Skripals were first poisoned, it was the largest news story in the entire World and you were uniquely positioned having held several meetings with Sergei Skripal the previous year. Yet faced with what should have been a massive career break, you withheld that unique information on a major story from the public for four months. Why?
2) You were an officer in the Royal Tank Regiment together with Skripal's MI6 handler, Pablo Miller, who also lived in Salisbury. Have you maintained friendship with Miller over the years and how often do you communicate?
3) When you met Skripal in Salisbury, was Miller present all or part of the time, or did you meet Miller separately?
4) Was the BBC aware of your meetings with Miller and/or Skripal at the time?
5) When, four months later, you told the world about your meetings with Skripal after the Rowley/Sturgess incident, you said you had met him to research a book. Yet the only forthcoming book by you advertised is on the Skripal attack. What was the subject of your discussions with Skripal?
6) Pablo Miller worked for Orbis Intelligence. Do you know if Miller contributed to the Christopher Steele dossier on Trump/Russia?
7) Did you discuss the Trump dossier with Skripal and/or Miller?
8) Do you know whether Skripal contributed to the Trump dossier?
9) In your Newsnight piece following the Rowley/Sturgess incident, you stated that security service sources had told you that Yulia Skripal's telephone may have been bugged. Since January 2017, how many security service briefings or discussions have you had on any of the matter above.I look forward to hearing from you.
Craig Murray
I should very much welcome others also sending emails to Mark Urban to emphasise the public demand for an answer from the BBC to these vital questions. If you have time, write your own email, or if not copy and paste from mine.
To quote that great Scot John Paul Jones, "We have not yet begun to fight".
A Traub , August 29, 2018 at 08:21
Jo , August 29, 2018 at 10:53Not going in to the details of the Skripals etc but what this goes to show is the limitations of the FOI Act. The FOI Act was brought in by the Blair Govt but of course was very much weakened in its final version. Even this was very much regretted by Blair in his autobiography who said what an 'idiot' he had been to bring it in. Tony, you need have no fear – powerful institutions like the BBC can block any meaningful probing because of the limitations of the law.
Reply ↓Steve Hayes , August 29, 2018 at 11:32Spotted this yesterday .5103
"A Ukrainian political consultant has revealed to Sputnik that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele sought and paid for researchers in Ukraine to concoct fake stories about Donald Trump prior his election as US president to use in the now-infamous dossier that supposedly contained damning evidence of Russia-Trump collusion.Radio Sputnik's Lee Stranahan spoke previously with Ukrainian political consultant and former diplomat Andrii Telizhenko about his connections to a Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative named Alexandra Chalupa who also worked for clients in Ukrainian politics. Chalupa told Politico in January 2017 that beginning in 2015, she pulled on a network of sources she'd established in Kiev and Washington to try and turn up dirt on Trump , once his star began to rise in the Republican primary campaign." Etc etc
Mick Robson , August 29, 2018 at 17:11The BBC is a propaganda organisation. It has even admitted it. http://viewsandstories.blogspot.com/2018/04/bbc-asserts-it-is-propaganda.html
PleaseBeleafMe , August 29, 2018 at 17:47I can't add any cogency to the (so-far) fruitless quest for information from the BBC, but last weeks R4 programme (still available on iPlayer) The Reunion, in which the Skripal, and more recent 'nerve agent' attacks, were discussed and, I thought, neatly tied in with the 'Murder of Georgi Markov in the 1950s, apparently by Bulgarian secret agents, perhaps deserves examination by listeners and researchers more interested in BBC propaganda.
A panel of 'experts', diplomats, security people, some of whom you may very well knowand who laid claim to being 'there or thereabouts', concluded that The Skripal's incident bore all the markings of 'state sponsored' action, though, of course, they would never know until "the Russian archives are opened".
It all sounded thoroughly convincing (radio does when you're driving on a long-haul, I find) but it did occur to me that the programme, though ostensibly about the 'murder of Markov' was intended to draw the listener to inevitable conclusions about the perpetrators of Salisbury and Amesbury 'poisonings'.
The BBC is very good at obfuscation and I felt this was a good example. Sorry I cannot be more 'relevant' to your blog of 27/08/18. Good luck, and please. as they say, keep up the good work.
Garth Carthy , August 28, 2018 at 15:04Interesting link with alot of great info in the commemts on this story.
Charles Bostock , August 28, 2018 at 15:34I remember the excellent 'Media Lens' team have complained about Mark Urban in the past with his blatant Western bias. For example, like the other overpaid political analysts and presenters on the BBC, he doesn't question the stated but transparently dishonest premise of the West – that they are intervening in other nations on a humanitarian basis. Like the other wastes of space in the mainstream media, he is also quick to mention civilian deaths by the Russians but not so quick to mention those killed by the West.
As I recall, Urban completely failed to reply to or to address the concerns of Media Lens in a reasonable way.
Sharp Ears , August 28, 2018 at 13:55Garth
"I remember the excellent 'Media Lens' team have complained about Mark Urban in the past with his blatant Western bias."
Mark Urban is from a Western country and the broadcaster he works for is in a Western country. Why are you so surprised that both he and the organisation he works for have a "Western bias"? Is that so abnormal? Would you expect him to have a pro-Chinese or a pro-Russian or, for that matter, a pro-Brazilian bias and would you be happy if he had? Would you expect a journalist who works for RT to have an anti-Russian, pro-Western bias?
SA , August 28, 2018 at 09:24Ramifications.
'Recently Aeroflot has been affected by US sanctions and its flights to America face possible suspension by Washington, as the US government seeks to punish the Kremlin for its alleged involvement in the poisoning of former double agent and Russian national Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in March.'
https://www.rt.com/trends/aeroflot-russia-airlines-international/Russian skies could become too expensive for US airlines if Washington targets Aeroflot
American carriers would face huge financial losses if Russia increases tariffs for the use of its airspace in response to possible US sanctions targeting the country's largest airline Aeroflot, an expert has told RT.
https://www.rt.com/business/435599-russia-aeroflot-us-sanctions/uncle tungsten , August 28, 2018 at 09:53So are the pieces starting to fall into place?
- Skripal, Urban, BBC
- Skripal, Miller, Steele
- Steele dossier, FBI
- FBI, Mueller, Russiagate
- Urban, de Bretton-Gordon
- OPCW power to convict, Syria false flags, Salisbury
- East Ghouta, Salisbury
One can join the dots and it all points to one direction. Other conspiracy theories pale into insignificance.
ADHD , August 28, 2018 at 11:22Great SA but I must add this link: Stefan Halper
https://saraacarter.com/whistleblower-exposes-key-player-in-fbi-russia-probe-it-was-all-a-set-up/Klutzes all! and now the entire story is unravelling thanks to that idiot Alexander Downer and his mate Halper. I guess their little maltese buddy Joe Mifsud is deeply underground for a decade or two.
giyane , August 28, 2018 at 13:24I hadn't really followed the implications until' your list. So there will be a chemical attack and the OPCW will assign blame to Syria (but also possibly Syria/Russia).
The US have been making it clear that they would hold Russia accountable for any "further" chemical weapons attacks carried out by Syria. This could used then to remove Russia form the UN Security Council. Even for the UN to no longer recognise the Russian Government as legitimate and instead recognise an alternative Russian Government (under Mikhail Khardovsky). Will China fall in line?
This looks awfully close to the start of a full scale war.
George K , August 28, 2018 at 13:36The UN has been turning a blind eye to neo-con murder since 9/11. They are a busted flush. There is no residual value or purpose for the UN in an age that backs Saudi Arabi to train terrorists in Myanmar.
As to Senator John McCain the world will be a safer place when this terrorist is finally removed. The UN is wholly owned by the US. The US neo-cons have sucked every particle of respectability out of it.
" Those who antagonise the believing Muslim men and women and do not repent will be consigned to the Fire, to dwell forever therein. " Qur'an. I am immensely proud of Donald trump for refusing to honour him.
Borncynical , August 28, 2018 at 18:08Frightening, and probably part of the plan. I have been reading for the last 2 days a series of warnings by the Russians that a chemical "attack" is imminent. Not many translations of this in the MSM. One would think that they wouldn't dare after such warnings, but I am not optimistic. After all, how many people have read the warnings?
Borncynical , August 28, 2018 at 22:56George K
I've seen posts on Twitter about this warning by the Russians and you know what the counter-argument is that they are putting forward? They contend that it's a double bluff by the Syrians/Russians. Well, if you're intending to use chemical weapons why wouldn't you make out that the other side are planning it as a false flag? Trouble is, Western governments will be more than happy to go along with that in the public eye – let's face it, they know the real truth of the situation. I note however that the Russian warning mentions the active role in the planned false flag played by British security firm Olive. I haven't seen any denial from them so that would suggest to a neutral observer that the Russian allegations do have some foundation and hopefully will be enough to 'put the wind up' those planning the event.
SA , August 29, 2018 at 03:29Further to my post at 18.08 I see a short and sweet statement on the Sputnik website that "Olive Group has no involvement" Suzanne Piner, the company's marketing director said. So there we have it, who are we to disbelieve them??
John Bull , August 28, 2018 at 09:39Borncynical
I personally never believe rumours unless they are officially denied.Robert , August 28, 2018 at 10:10A great blog, Craig, and lots of good comments. I have two contributions.
1. A recent Spectator blog talked of a 'Stockade of D-notices'. Surely that means more than the two we know about. So I guess that anyone working in the MSM must have to tread carefully.
2. We are swimming in a sea of fake news, disinformation, misinformation, deliberate lies and speculation. I have found only one rock worth clinging onto and it's this. The Porton Down analyst (CC) who gave evidence to the high court which heard the blood sample application said the analysis of the Skripals blood indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound (para 17 of the judge's report). It is reasonable to assume they used the term 'nerve agent' correctly, i.e. belonging to the group of organo-phosphorus compounds (from the OPCW website). On the assumption CC told the truth, there are only three possibilities:-
a. The Skripals were exposed to a nerve agent, or
b. They were exposed to a related compound that was not a nerve agent, or
c. The analysis was unable to say whether it was a nerve agent or a related compound.If it was 'a', why did CC muddy the waters by saying 'or a related compound? Very unlikely, bearing in mind the sensitivety of the issue.
If it was 'c', is it credible that Porton Down, world leaders in chemical weaponry, were not able to tell if a substance was a nerve agent or not? I think not.
Which leaves 'b'. That the Skripals were not poisoned by a nerve agent.
I think we should all write to our MPs pointing this out and request a Parliamentary Question be put to the Secretary of State for Defence (who oversees PD) asking for full details of those blood tests and for Theresa to be briefed accordingly. She would then be required under the Ministerial Code to correct her misleading statements to the House which claimed the Skripals were poisoned by a nerve agent.
John Bull , August 28, 2018 at 12:06John Bull at 09:39
" why did CC muddy the waters by saying 'or a related compound? "
Maybe because they couldn't be sure from their measurements whether the truth was a. or b.?
The CC statement seems to rule out only c.Terence Wallis , August 28, 2018 at 14:59Hi Robert – if CC knew for sure they Skripals were exposed to a nerve agent, CC would not have added 'or a related compound' as it only serves to confuse. CC might have said it because he/she couldn't tell from the findings – most unlikely – so the only reason he/she said the words 'or a related compound' was to avoid lying under oath to the high court.
In my view.
Paul Greenwood , August 28, 2018 at 11:48It all comes down to contaminated crack or whatever they used, especially the Amesbury folk. They're well known imbibers a friend living there has told me. I pass this on merely as a possible explanation from 'people who know'.
John Bull , August 28, 2018 at 12:11Yes and whose lab tested the blood ? Maybe Porton Down offered their services ?
Sandra , August 28, 2018 at 13:29Hi Paul – yes. At the court hearing, CC was referring to the initial blood analyses carried out by Porton Down a day or so after the poisoning. But clearly the doubt sown by the words 'or a related compound' remained at least until 20th March when CC gave that evidence.
Cherrycoke , August 28, 2018 at 15:52I remember reading that Court of Protection judgement wording at the time and made some notes about it, plus how this wording compared with that of Gary Aitkenhead's and the OPCW's:
When comparing the wording from three sources – interview with head of Porton Down, court hearing and OPCW documents – I think that there is room for the absence of Novichok in blood samples taken from the Skripals before 22/03.
The Court of Protection judgement before Mr Justice Williams (22/03), (regarding an application to take blood samples for the OPCW to confirm Porton Down's earlier analysis), states that earlier blood tests carried out by Porton Down "indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent." (Please note the "or".) The statement comes at point 17 i):
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/sshd-v-skripal-and-another-20180322.pdf
Then, Gary Aitkenhead, CEO of Porton Down, told Sky News (04/04) that the substance they found was "..Novichok or from that family.." (Again, please note the "or".) The statement comes 1:27mins in on this YouTube video, which has a less edited version than on the Sky News site, plus some interesting notes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R23AQAFvZ-4
And the OPCW's executive summary, which has been made public, does not mention Novichok by name, but it says that the results of their tests confirm the findings of the UK relating to the chemical's identity, and show that the toxic chemical is of high purity. It says that the name and structure of the toxic chemical are contained in the full classified report of the Secretariat, available to the state parties of the OPCW.
Taken from points 10, 11 and 12 at:https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/S_series/2018/en/s-1612-2018_e_.pdf
James , August 28, 2018 at 15:02I have been thinking about this as well. Please note that "nerve agent or related compound" leaves open the possibility that the compound is not even a nerve agent.
It would be interesting to know the expert definitions of "closely related" and "family" with regard to "nerve agent" and "novichok".
The general understanding is that it was A-234. This has never been confirmed in a public statement, however.
John Bull , August 28, 2018 at 15:12Expressions like "nerve agent" subconsciously conjure up dark and sinister evildoing in the world of James Bond and his "licence to kill", at least in the minds of most British English speakers. The same psychology is at work when you see "Polite Notice" and subconsciously read it as "Police Notice". Such notices are invariably unofficial, and often impolite!
For the mischief makers, however, mere "nerve agent", with its ambiguity and murky undertones, was not enough; "novichok" will soon be a novichok entry for 2018 in the OED. ("Новичо́к" means "newcomer", "new guy"–as in freshman, rookie, novice.)
Modern nerve agents were first discovered in the 1930s by German industrial chemists experimenting with organophosphorus compounds (which are defined by containing a particular grouping of carbon, phosphorus and oxygen atoms). They were trying to make new insecticides which would be powerful but safe(ish), but stumbled across tabun, which was powerful but very unsafe. Given the political situation, and realising the military potential, these chemists then pursued their research with emphasis on the extremely unsafe, and with huge success. After 1945, having had no such success themselves, the victorious allies' chemists "inherited" this German research; the Soviets did particularly well here, as there was much German manufacturing infrastructure in Poland. Exactly what happened next is obviously kept very secret, but some refinements were certainly achieved such as VX, and–allegedly–the Novichoks. Per Chalmers Johnson: "we knew Saddam had WMD; we had the receipts".
All very interesting (not really), and probably well-understood by a few reading this. A problem in getting a real understanding of all this novichok/Skripal malarkey lies in some misunderstandings of the details about the foregoing, of which few will be properly aware, Craig included. He read history.Firstly organophosphorus compounds are certainly not inherently toxic; DNA is an organophosphate, as is RNA, ATP, etc. Boat loads of other basic biochemistry involves this chemical grouping. To equate "nerve agent" (or "insecticide") with "organophosphate" is a good start, but nothing more.
Secondly, the idea that nerve agents are new is misleading. Curare (poison) tipped arrows have been used in South America for millenia, secretions by bufotenine toads similarly used elsewhere, with many many other examples throughout recorded history (and beyond). These chemicals could all semantically correctly be termed nerve agents.
Interestingly, although tabun's potency was discovered in the 30s by Schrader er al, it had been unwittingly synthesised 40-odd years earlier. There's nothing new under the sun.
Thirdly, poisoning by ACE nerve agents (which, allegedly, includes Новичо́к) is quick and easy(ish) to detect and interpret in an unambiguous way. Less so more exotic and novel toxins (so obviously not eg curare or bufotoxins, but along those lines). However, given time, a good analysis is doable using mass spectrometry, SEM, X-ray crystallography (and other) methods.
In reply to John Bull, I wouldn't say we're "swimming in a sea of fake news, et seq", more bobbing around like corks. Love the moniker, by the way! It works on so many levels.
mark golding , August 28, 2018 at 17:24Very good summary. Thanks, James.
Glad you like it!Rhys Jaggar , August 28, 2018 at 18:30It was NOT a nerve agent that is why somebody had to die – to enforce the lie. Life in this universe is cheap
uncle tungsten , August 28, 2018 at 09:43John
I suspect the reason for the wording is that what was identified was an acetylcholineesterase (ACE) inhibitor, which covers the major nerve agents and other compounds as well.
Hatuey , August 28, 2018 at 10:35Here is one of the really stupid things about the official british story line on the Skripals. Sergei and Yulia are supposed to have left their home at around 1:30 and both swiped their hands on the door lever and were then novihoaxed. They drove to town and parked their car ten minutes later. They then walked through the park and stopped to hand feed the ducks in the stream and handed bread to the young boys to also feed the ducks. They then went on to act 2 scene 1 at zizzis or the pub and then act 2 scene two collapsed on the bench.
No young boy or duck was harmed making this play. The military grade novihoax is incapable of killing a duck, let alone a child as this pair smeared military grade nerve poison on everything! They have incinerated the zizzi table and heaven knows what has been incinerated at the pub. They incinerated the Skripals front door, who knows what fate was delivered to the BMW.
But they cant kill a duck! Mind you they can starve Skripal pets.
Are we to believe this story?
SA , August 28, 2018 at 11:23How do you know that ducks didn't suffer or die?
Hatuey , August 28, 2018 at 14:32Brilliant diversion. How do you prove a negative? Of course very simple, no dead ducks were reported.
SA , August 28, 2018 at 14:39I wasn't trying to divert. I know quite a bit about the habits of ducks. You'll very rarely see a dead duck anywhere in the natural world. Same with swans. They like to die in private.
I can tell you that it's very unlikely that you'd have any reports of dead ducks in Salisbury parks.
Before anyone puts this down to more high level trolling, I used to be a wildlife photographer. And I mean a proper one, i.e one that crawled around in mud for days at a time filming and photographing ducks.
ADHD , August 28, 2018 at 15:15Even more brilliant as now, because of your marvellous personal experience, this is almost unprovable one way or another. Well done.
Ken Kenn , August 28, 2018 at 10:40The ducks were an obvious joke (of derision). The joke has a second level (not hidden); the young boys didn't die because everyone knows the novichok poisoning story is not true?
"No ducks or young boys were harmed in the making of this movie!"
All of the above just paraphrases/repeats what uncle tungsten said
You jobs sounds like it was really great, I envy you. But your contribution (here) sucks big time!
SA , August 28, 2018 at 11:25Good thoughts.
There appears to be a distinct lack of cross contamination.
The Skripal car should be riven with this poison – on the steering wheel- gear stick etc etc. If so, then reports of it being burned should follow like the table – as the guinea pigs and the cat were.
It should be all over the bread and all over the assistant duck feeders and the ducks should have been legion with their webbed feet up in the air.
The door handle application is a crock. If, as is claimed the alleged Novichok was pure then who made it should be known because of its purity.
If it's Russian that should be provable. So far the proof that it is Russian made has not been shown.
ADHD , August 28, 2018 at 12:42"So far the proof that it is Russian made has not been shown." Nonsense, the very name novichok is a giveaway, nobody would use a novichok except Russians.
Doodlebug , August 28, 2018 at 14:44Thanks, SA, that wouldn't have occurred to me!
ADHD , August 28, 2018 at 15:25And Dawn Sturgess' perfume bottle had 'Moscow © Browder Enterprises' moulded underneath.
SA , August 28, 2018 at 18:02Browder just wants us to go to war with Russia so he can keep his stolen money, that's not too much to ask!
Terence Wallis , August 28, 2018 at 15:04I forgot to add Browder to one of the dots I mentioned earlier.
SA , August 28, 2018 at 18:01I'd say you're suffering from novichock poisoning with your addled thinking
ADHD , August 28, 2018 at 18:15Also novichok seems to cause acute sense of humour failure in observers.
Rod , August 28, 2018 at 10:50Terence, It's a serious issue but derision is a powerful weapon; certainly stronger than the novichok used against the Skripals.
Borncynical , August 28, 2018 at 12:19It adds a new dimension to the saying : "You couldn't make it up". They, obviously couldn't.
Borncynical , August 28, 2018 at 12:26"They have incinerated the Zizzi table " The significance of the table in this saga intrigues me. I recall when the 'details' (!!) of events were revealed by the MSM at the outset we were informed that the table had been covered in nerve agent in the form of a fine white powder and had to be incinerated. [ In fact it was so badly contaminated even Porton Down didn't have the capability of storing it safely – that's my facetious 'take' on it before anyone asks where I read that!]
On the assumption that it was indeed incinerated as a 'risk' item it begs a couple of obvious questions which the official narrative hasn't explained. First, the time lapse between the Skripals leaving Zizzis, being identified and their movements traced back to the restaurant and 'lockdown' being applied to everything in the restaurant: we don't know but I would hazard a guess an hour minimum. Are we really supposed to believe that the plates, dishes and cutlery left by the Skripals weren't cleared away in all that time, and the table wasn't wiped down? Irrespective of whether the nerve agent residue that we are supposed to believe was being spread all over Salisbury was visible or not, surely whoever cleared the table and washed up the dishes would definitely have been contaminated if we are to believe what we have been told about the door handle theory.
Adding to my comment at 12.19, we mustn't also forget that glasses and dishes would also have been removed from the table during the course of the Skripals' meal as well, not to mention money or credit cards or card reading machines etc exchanging hands. And the drinking glasses used at the pub. The more you think about it, the more ridiculous the official line becomes.
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk
fredi , August 28, 2018 at 21:32Pink Floyd Legend Roger Waters Slams Skripal Case as 'Nonsense'
The former leader of Pink Floyd has also blasted the White Helmets, a dubious Syrian volunteer organization which has been accused of staging videos of chemical attacks, as part of the "propaganda war," echoing the dismissive comments he made earlier this year.
The UK's Momentary Lapse of Reason
In an interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestiya, former Pink Floyd member Roger Waters dismissed the infamous Skripal case as "nonsense." "That the attack on the Skripals was nonsense is clear to a person with half a brain. But some don't even have one half, that's why they believe in this absurd," he was quoted as saying by the newspaper.
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk
Willie Wobblestick , August 28, 2018 at 14:04Nothing to See Here
Rather like Janet Jackson's nipples,
It's been a while since we've seen the Skripals.
Not so long ago they were all over the news
As official drones droned their official views.
They said that in Salisbury wherever you look
Lurked sinister types splashing novichuk.
Door handle specialists had been imported,
Or so the BBC unquestioningly reported.
A laundry list of despicable acts
Only vaguely coincident with the salient facts.
Boris Johnson wasn't sitting on the fence,
He don't need no stinkin' evidence.
'It was them Russkies wot dunnit, no doubt about that',
Said the country's pre-eminent diplomat.
KGB thugs sent to put the boot in,
By Mr. Evil, Vladimir Stalin Putin.
Novichuk's lethality was re-emphasised again,
More deadly than others by a factor of ten.
Yet somehow miraculously the Skripals survived,
In Salisbury General they inconveniently revived.
And that was all we heard for a while
Bar a weird statement in machine-prose style.
Then a curious video right out of the blue
That looked like an advert for flyaway shampoo.
A chilled out Yulia said she was contented,
And consular access had not been prevented,
But no, she didn't want to meet up with her kin
(Not that the government would let them in).
The whole production was charmingly informal,
As though poisoning and exile were perfectly normal.
This remarkable young woman's taken it all in her stride,
Seemingly happy to go along with the ride.
Her boyfriend, her job, her dog and her flat
All peremptorily dumped at the drop of a hat.
The un-fake corporate media performed as tasked
Ensuring awkward questions remained unasked.
And all this ludicrous b-movie rigmarole
Was discreetly d-noticed down the memory hole.
The legal and diplomatic situation's now clear:
'Move along sir, nothing to see here.'
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Look at the Skripal affair. The British government's account of what happened is hilariously unconvincing, and the Foreign Minister himself was caught red-handed in a lie of such monstrous proportions that he was hopelessly compromised and his remaining audience of five true believers could no longer take anything he said as factual. Far from the only example of his instinctive lying, I might add. But the British government demands you take them at their word: they can't show anyone any evidence – 'coz it's National Security, innit? – but any alternate narrative other than the official account of what happened is fake news. Horrific misinformation. Any western authority granted the mandate to rule on what is misinformation is going to abuse that power to ensure only its side of a story (which always has at least two) is the one that is heard. Period. You would like to believe they're above that, but they're not.
Well, that was a longer diversion than I planned; let's get back to Caitlin Johnstone. Here's what she said, in one of those dozy tweets I dislike so much. "Friendly public service reminder that John McCain has devoted his entire political career to slaughtering as many human beings as possible at every opportunity, and the world will be improved when he finally dies".
I'm sure it was that last bit that sent the 'fake news' crowd over the precipice, because we are conditioned as western citizens to never speak ill of the dead, and the prohibition plainly extends to the almost-dead. The Undead, if you prefer. That's not the first time Ms. Johnstone, who is nothing if not plain-spoken, has expressed the conviction that the expiration of John McCain is an event which is long overdue. It may well be regarded as insensitive, although I honestly cannot disagree with it, as his continued persistence on this mortal coil means a continued manifestation of his malign influence, and he continues to exercise his privilege to speak on behalf of his constituents to vote for the most destructive course every time it is offered as an option.
If I may be allowed one more tiny diversion, one I have certainly advanced before on the unaccountable American fascination with free speech, I believe it bears directly on Ms. Johnstone's legal right to say insensitive things, according to established legal precedent. On October 18th, 1998, the Westboro Baptist Church – aka Lunatic Space-Cadets Anonymous – picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard , a gay man who was beaten unconscious, tied to a fence and left for dead by a couple of homophobic assailants, and who died of his injuries. The congregation carried signs which bore such inflammatory slogans as "No Tears for Queers", "Fag Matt Burns in Hell", and the more perennial but generalized "God Hates Fags". No action was taken against the church. The family of a decorated US Marine who died in Iraq later took Westboro Baptist Church to court for their provocative baiting at solemn occasions like their son's funeral, and lost. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Westboro's right to free speech did not infringe on the family's right to conduct a funeral without interference.
So any prohibition on publicly wishing John McCain would cease his irritating evasion of the Grim Reaper is imaginary, faith-based and entirely without legal merit.
Getting back to the issue, Ms. Johnstone's initial antagonist – Patrick – tweeted in response; "What a miserable, despicable person. You are the definition of deplorable. I may frequently disagree with Senator John McCain and Meghan McCain with all due criticism, but they should sue you for libel. This is disgusting."
What is libel ? Libel is "to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio,television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civilwrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. "
Hey, I know – let's play lawyer, wanna? No costly law degree required; I already said we were playing. But since we've already demonstrated that Ms. Johnstone can't be (successfully) sued for libel for expressing the opinion that the world will be a better place once John McCain has popped his pricey tasseled clogs, then the point of libelous contention must be the allegation that John McCain has availed himself of every opportunity to vote for policies or undertakings which contributed to the slaughter of human beings. A customary and absolute defense against the charge of libel is establishment that the allegedly libelous statement is, in fact, true. Can we do that? I'll bet we can.
Although he was very much a part of the Vietnam War, John McCain was not a politician at that time, and Ms. Johnstone specified that he had used his political career to press for military action which resulted in many casualties. I don't think the modification of 'as many as possible' would be enforceable under libel laws, as it would be too difficult to prove. Could there have been even more casualties, on both sides, in any military action in which Senator McCain had a vote? Probably, but there is no realistic way to determine if they were either limited or aggravated by his direct participation in the vote. By the same token, the contribution of his vote to any casualties which did take place is, I think, inarguable.
So let's start with America's next big war – the Gulf War against Iraq, Take One. John McCain voted for war . Were there casualties? You could say that; 294 Americans died in the Gulf War. The UK lost 47. It's worth noting, as an aside, that Syria was a US ally in the Gulf War, and had 2 of its soldiers killed. How about Iraqis? Well, nobody seems to have kept a very accurate count – they were, after all, the enemy, and killing them was encouraged – and the official American count is established from Iraqi prisoner-of-war records, and was featured in a report commissioned by the US Air Force. It estimates 20,000-22,000 combat deaths overall, in both the air and ground campaigns. Was that a slaughter? You tell me. And before we move on from the Gulf War, John McCain voted (after the war was over) against providing automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for certain veterans' benefits. Four years later, McCain supported an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and other federal agencies by $8.9 billion. The following year, McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. As of the year 2000, 183,000 U.S. veterans of the Gulf War, more than a quarter of the U.S. troops who participated, had been declared permanently disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs. You may only be 'slaughtered' if you are dead, but the irrevocable changes for the worse in the quality of life for thousands of Americans who were only doing what their country ordered them to do should count for something, what do you say?
This from the American senator who famously could not remember how many houses he and his wife owned . For the record, the number of homes, ranches, condos, and lofts, together worth a combined estimated $13,823,269.00, was ten.
Gee; I'm starting to get a little mad at McCain. Well, let's move on.
In 2003, the US government of the day decided that Saddam Hussein had not learned his lesson the first time, and so this time he had to go. Accordingly, the USA polled its allies for military forces who were not otherwise occupied, and had another go at it. John McCain said hell yes, let's get it on. American military casualties , 4,287 killed, 30,187 wounded. A bit more of a slaughter than the first attempt. The advent of ceramic-plate body armor protected the soldier's body core, so that many more survived injuries that would have been so horrific they would surely have killed them. The downside is that many lived who lost limbs too badly damaged to save, and were crippled for whatever life remained to them. The Iraqi casualty figures were again an estimate, although better documented; by the most reliable count, somewhere between 182,000 and 204,000 Iraqis were killed. Needlessly and pointlessly slaughtered, many of them; American troops grew so fearful as a result of the steady drip of casualties among their own that they frequently opened fire on families in cars with children simply because they did not obey instructions in a language they did not speak or understand. At Mahmudiya, in March 2006, Private Steven Green and his co-conspirators raped and killed 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza, killed her family and set her body afire to blur the details of the crime. When Iraqi soldiers arrived on the scene, Green and his fellow murderers blamed it on Sunni insurgents.
The following year, President Bush approved a 'surge' of 20,000 additional troops, which John McCain so energetically agitated for that it became known informally as 'the McCain doctrine'. That's after he claimed in 2004 that if an elected government in Iraq asked that US forces leave, they would have to go even if they were not happy with the security situation. He also recognized, the following year, that Iraqis resented the American military presence, and the sooner and more dramatically it could be reduced, the better it would be for everyone. I guess if you lay claim to both sides of the argument, you're bound to convince someone that you know what you're doing.
That same year, 2007, John McCain voted against a requirement for specifying minimum time periods between deployments for soldiers deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. When they need you back in the meat-grinder, you go, never mind how many times you've already been there. Let's just keep in mind, before we leave Iraq, that the entire case for war the second time around was fabricated with wild tales of awful weapons Saddam supposedly had which could kill Americans while they were still in America , and so he had to be dealt with. When it was suggested to the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that America should concentrate on Afghanistan, since that is where the backers of the 9-11 strike against America had fled, he mused that there were 'no good targets in Afghanistan' , although there were 'lots of good targets in Iraq'. Some researchers suggest he was after a 'teachable moment' for America's enemies which would convince them of America's irresistible power. While John McCain assessed that Donald Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense ever, his complaint was not that Rumsfeld was not killing enough people, but that he showed insufficient commitment to winning the war.
Libya. Hoo, boy. In 2009, John McCain – together with fellow die-faster-please senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham – visited Tripoli , to discuss Libya's acquisition of American military equipment. John McCain assured Gadaffi (his son, actually) that America was eager to provide Libya with the equipment it needed. Hardly more than a year later, he espoused the position that Gadaffi must be removed from power because he had American blood on his hands from the Lockerbie bombing. In 2011, he visited the Libyan 'rebels', and publicly urged Washington to consider a ground attack to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power. Just a friendly public service reminder; the Lockerbie bombing was most likely carried out by Syria, was – according to pretty reliable testimony – rigged by the American intelligence services to finger Libya , and probably the stupidest thing Gaddafi ever did was to admit to it anyway and pay compensation, in an effort to move on.
Anyway, more war. What the fuck is it with this guy?
Well, even something so grim as war has its comic moments. What else would you call it when NATO claims, with a straight face, that the enemy is hiding his tanks and artillery from its watchful eye inside the water pipes of the Great Man-Made River? What they actually wanted was an excuse to bomb it – which they did, as well as the pumping stations which brought abundant fresh water to the coastal region, in the certain knowledge that it would create a crisis for the civilian population. Which, by the bye, is against just about every convention on the subject ever written.
Here are some of the pipe sections, when they were being trucked to the assembly point. As the article suggests, these sections are 4 meters across; but remember, that's at their widest point. They are only 4 meters for about a foot, because a water pipe is a circle.
Libya mostly used the T-72 Main Battle Tank, and those would be the ones NATO wanted to eliminate, since the others were considerably older. A T-72, width-wise, would just fit in a 4-meter water pipe, as it is 3.6 meters wide . However, it's also over 45 tons in weight. The concrete rings were designed to carry free-flowing water, not a 45-ton tank. Would they take that kind of weight, distributed only over a 7-meter length? Where is there an entry point to the water-pipe that is the same width as the widest diameter of the pipe? As discussed, the water pipe is 4 meters wide at its widest point. But the T-72 is 2.3 meters high. The tank would only fit if it was as high as a lunchbox, because the 4-meter width narrows dramatically from the widest point; it's a circle. Even where it did fit, it would be supported only on the outer edges of its tracks, and you have to cut the 4-meter measurement approximately in half, because the upper portion of the tank would have to be above the point where the tracks touched on each side. The idea was preposterous from the outset, and it speaks to what fucking simpletons western government believes make up its populations that they would dare to put such nutjobbery in print. A T-72 could not fit in a 4-meter water pipe. The notion was demonstrably foolish. But NATO wanted to destroy the water system, so it made up a reason that would allow it to be a well-meaning potential victim of deadly violence.
According to The Guardian – the same source that told you Gadaffi was hiding his tanks in the plumbing – the death toll in the Libyan civil war prior to the NATO intervention was about 1000-2000. According to the National Transitional Council, the outfit the west engineered to rule post-Gaddafi Libya, the final butcher's bill was about 30,000 dead . The very day after NATO folded its tents – figuratively speaking, as the western role was entirely air support for the flip-flop-wearing rebels – and went home, al Qaeda raised its black flag over the Benghazi courthouse .
Caitlin Johnstone claimed John McCain used his political career to advocate for military interventions which resulted in the slaughter of large numbers of human beings. Is that accurate? What say you, members of the jury? In each of the cases above, John McCain used his political influence, over and above his vote, to argue, advocate, hector and plead for military intervention by the armed forces of the United States of America and such coalition partners as could be rounded up. In each of the cases above, the necessity of toppling the evildoing dictator was exaggerated out of all proportion, portrayed as an instant and refreshing liberation for his people, and as only the first phase of a progressive plan which would turn the subject country into a prosperous, western-oriented market democracy. In each of the cases above the country is now a divided and ruined failed state whose pre-war situation was significantly better than its miserable present. And in each of the cases above, a lot of people were killed who could otherwise have reasonably expected to be alive today.
Also, each of the cases above is chronologically separated from the others by a sufficient span for it to be quite evident what a cluster-fuck the previous operation was, so that anyone disposed to learn from his mistakes might have approached the situation differently as it gained momentum, argued for caution based on previously-recorded clusterfuckery, pleaded for reason to prevail and for improved dialogue to be a priority. Not John McCain. He learned precisely the square root of nothing from previous catastrophes, and plunged into the next catastrophe with the enthusiasm most remarked among those who are not all there, as the vernacular describes it. He not only voted for war every time, he expended considerable effort in cajoling and persuading the reluctant to go along.
Perhaps the introduction here of the definition for 'warmonger' would be helpful to the jury. To wit; "O ne who advocates or attempts to stir up war. A person who fosters warlike ideas or advocates war." Synonyms: hawk, aggressor, belligerent, militarist, jingoist, sabre-rattler. There, John; I just saved you the trouble of writing an epitaph.
Will the world be a better place once John McCain is gone? Difficult to say, really, and the present state of affairs in the world argues strongly that it will not. But it will certainly be no poorer for his passing, and if he were to be replaced politically by an individual who took the trouble to do a little research, muse on previous experience, and review all the available options before voting to send in the Marines why, that would be a victory for everyone in a world where victory is increasingly not even a possibility.
Was Caitlin Johnstone right? Broadly speaking, and going on the information available at the time her statement was made, yes; she was.
151 THOUGHTS ON " IN THE MATTER OF THE PEOPLE VS. CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, THE DEFENSE RESTS. " Reply
KIRILL August 21, 2018 at 4:31 pm
JEN August 21, 2018 at 6:53 pm@Mark
Good article. The same 2000 dead hysteria (a number that included 800 dead Serbs) was used in 1999 to justify the bombing of Serbia. After the UCK terrorists took over Kosovo together with NATzO, many more Serbs were butchered than the mostly 1200 terrorists that NATzO was so worried about. I suspect that McShitStain was a big time proponent of the gang rape of Serbia as well.
McShitStain is merely a dumb US attack dog. He does his masters' bidding well and thankfully there is some justice in this world that he gets cancer. I really do hope he pops off this mortal coil. I have seen very good people die from brain cancer and it would be very unfair if this sick nutjob recovered.
We are living through a rather nasty time. The so-called PC left in the US is totally unhinged and engaged in witch hunts togther with the lie factory US MSM. I refuse to believe that "antifa" and all these so-called social justice warriors are real leftists. They are engaged in fascism and their backers are the corporate oligarchy of the USA. At this stage it looks like Germany during the 1930s (no, Trump is not the Hitler equivalent) in that a state of hysteria has taken over the US political scene. All the Hillary worshippers (the Democrats are fake "leftists") actually believe the Russia conspiracy theory crap and want revenge. They also believe CNN and the rest of the MSM that they can roll over Russia with little effort. CNN has been a critical booster for all of the US wars since its formation. It incites Americans to support whatever war criminal enterprise that the US elites want to engage in. McShitStain is a cog in this war machine.
MARK CHAPMAN August 21, 2018 at 7:29 pmThe world definitely will be a better place after Jurassic John goes the way of the dinosaurs if only because whoever replaces him as Senator for Arizona won't have anything like the grubby contacts he has all over the world (let alone the scale of such a network) and will have to build up his/her own set.
Thanks Mark for another fiery post. Be careful you don't combust.
Meanwhile back in La-La-Land:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-20/chelsea-clinton-says-she-might-run-office-one-day
Like
JEN August 22, 2018 at 3:17 amHer sequential-talking-points delivery certainly suggests she is being groomed, or at a minimum has been prepared for the question as it is sure to come up. But for someone who claims that nobody has any idea what the future might bring, she certainly got a lot of mileage out of her answer.
Like
MARK CHAPMAN August 22, 2018 at 3:59 pmAmazing how she looks more and more like her mother with each passing day. By the time she decides that, yes, she will run for the Presidency, not only will she be a virtual physical clone but her brain will also have remodelled itself into Klintonator Killer Kranium Version 2.0.
It would be most ironic if Bubba-hotep had been cuckolded himself, given his skirt-chasing habit.
http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-this-chelsea-clintons-real-father-1780376180
Like
JEN August 22, 2018 at 4:57 pmHearsay suggests that she is already so broadly disliked among those who have had to work for or with her that it seems probable she would have a really hard time building a base. Before she could get seriously into running for public office she would have to convince the kingmakers that she has real star potential, and I just don't see it.
But I'm not American, so you never know.
Like
YALENSIS August 23, 2018 at 1:19 pmNeed more than hearsay need evidence!
Richard Johnson, "Staff quit Clinton Foundation over Chelsea"
https://pagesix.com/2015/05/18/chelsea-sends-clinton-foundation-staff-running/?_ga=1.267366988.395622878.1421150023Daniel Halper, "Aide calls Chelsea Clinton a 'spoiled brat' in leaked emails"
https://nypost.com/2016/10/11/aide-calls-chelsea-clinton-a-spoiled-brat-in-leaked-emails/Incredible: one Clinton Foundation employee nearly committed suicide due to the stress caused by Bubba-Hotep and his li'l princess through their constant meddling and raising issues that staff were expected to chase.
Eric Wemple "What did NBC News's Chelsea Clinton do for her $600,000 salary?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/06/13/what-did-nbc-newss-chelsea-clinton-do-for-her-600000-salary/?utm_term=.59f6cf7ef09a
Like
MOSCOW EXILE August 21, 2018 at 7:29 pmThe Kennedy clan had formerly attempted the same gambit by pushing Caroline into running for office; but she failed miserably and retreated back into private life.
Like
MOSCOW EXILE August 21, 2018 at 7:57 pmShock horrors!
Russia is soon to hold military exercises:
Russia prepares for 'largest war games' since Cold War
Galeotti gets a few words in:
" Despite furious Western attempts to isolate the Kremlin, countries still want to collaborate with Russia. By arms sales and cooperation, Russia is using its military strength to increase its geopolitical presence in the world".
You don't say!
Interestingly, the commenters to the article (so far) seem just to say "So what?":
Silly article WE have exercises all the time, including "Live" firing in the North of Scotland
not to mention the live exercises in which my nephew regularly participates with his and other British army armoured regiments on the Canadian prairie.
Of course, there are not a few head-banger readers of the Independent:
I would even doubt [Europe's] capacity to remove Russia from Poland never mind the Baltics if Russia decided to take them and the only reason they have not decided to do so is the big stick that is the US military which is especially potent under Trump. Same with China and Taiwan, Iran and Saudi etc etc.
Only Uncle Sam can hold the Red Beast at bay!
Pentagonbot?
Why not?
If anyone dare argue the "Kremlin" case in the British press, he is promptly accused of being a "Kremlinbot" and asked such inane questions as "What's the weather like in St. Petersburg today, Vladimir?"
Like
MOSCOW EXILE August 21, 2018 at 8:57 pmThese Kremlin war games preparations and the reactions of Western hysterics have already been given a mention further above, by the way.
I'm rather out of sync at the moment, as I am spending most of the present time out in the sticks, where I have no Internet connection.
And the abscence of Internet on my country estate is not because outside Moscow is the real, 3rd-world Russia: it's my choice!
Like
MOSCOW EXILE August 21, 2018 at 8:46 pmNot "further above" but in comments to Mark's previous article.
I have just noticed that this is a new article on the alleged Twitter libel made Johnstone against John McCain.
And it is "absence"!
Like
MARK CHAPMAN August 22, 2018 at 3:46 pmGaleotti uses the expression "collaborate with Russia" and not "do business with Russia".
Collaborate?
With the "Evil Empire" against the "Exceptional Nation", whose "manifest destiny" is to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world -- and billions of dollars to the USA?
Like
YALENSIS August 23, 2018 at 1:25 pmIt's like the difference between an 'administration' and a 'regime'. Obviously, there is one.
Like
MOSCOW EXILE August 21, 2018 at 8:31 pmEven "collaborate" is a spineless term when referring to Russia.
The proper word is "appease". As in "appeasing" Hitler, while also tossing in a Munich reference!
Like
Well argued article, Mark.
More dirt on McCain, whose source I now forget, but, if I rightly recall, it was a comment made by a US citizen on some blog way back. I have posted it before:
Allow me to disparage Mr. McCain (again), with facts. By several accounts ("Why Does the Nightingale Sing", for example), he only got into the Naval Academy for a free college degree because Dad and GrandDad were Admirals, and he should have been kicked out several times if not for that too. He was a lousy pilot who got into trouble often and crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot down on his third mission over Vietnam, and getting captured is not heroic.
What happened over there is difficult to pin down, but upon returning from POW status, he passed a physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of service that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating allowing him to collect some $40,000 a year tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when McCain was insisting he was fit to serve as commander in Chief. He now hauls in over $240,000 a year from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement, while all the while working full-time in the US Senate. So is he retired, or disabled, or gainfully employed? He is all three! This is textbook case of abuse and why or system needs reform to protect workers against rich welfare kings like McCain.
McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon after he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got divorced, so there's that bigamy thing.
I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy