Current Affairs Critically ill man is former Russian spy

[tsubaki]

Momentum idiots enraged about a "photoshop" of Corbyn... that didn't happen of course but facts are an irrelevance when dear leader is besmirched in the eyes of the comrades.



All the BBC are guilty of is a colour shift to fit in with the overall design of the creative, which any and every designer does on a daily basis - like when they made him blue here:



Anyway, just found it funny how the hard left take offence to being called snowflakes, yet become stereotypes of that phrase over a hat.

Outrage culture really is getting on my nerves. If you're going to be outraged by something, at the very least research the thing that is outraging you so that you're definitely sure you should be outraged ffs.

the hat outrage is ludicrous, people should be talking about what the Government has done / is doing rather than that nonsense

 

[PhilM]

'A term the government has coined for professionally produced chemical agents'. The government, says it all really.

So it is military because it is produced by the military professionally? It is military because it has been used on a battlefield? Which military establishment produced it and when? The OPCW have no evidence to say this 'novichok' exists backed up by the UK and the US.

Firstly, novichock is not a single entity but rather an umbrella term for a number of potential agents that differ from the usual G or V-agents.

Their reported production was to supposedly circumnavigate typical CBRN detection procedures - apart from that, it was all pretty sketchy.

And as your post rightfully mention, there isn't much more known that's currently accessible or mentionable in the public domain.

With regards to the government coining the term military agent, you've misunderstood - it's been coined when talking to the general population.

In reality, the more commonly known and kept agents are V-Agents (or persistent agents) and are in the mainstay produced in state laboratories.

Why? Well their complexity, the compounds needed, required storage and their cost; as such, the military are often part of this procedure.

These differ from more easily procurable G-Agents or those made by insecticides, hence why distinguishing them as military grade agents.

Anyone could make a bomb from fertilisers, but if I had my hands on some HMX or PETN then that would be military grade - get my drift?

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Wow, some terribly partisan people on here. A military grade nerve agent has been used on the streets of the U.K. and all you lot can do is blame the Tories. If Gordon Brown was still in office and the exact same circumstances happened, just ask yourselves if your responses would have been the same. This is not a political issue, most Labour people, of a sensible mind, totally agree with the government....

ha ha ha, Partisan my back side!
May and Tory Government could take on similar measures like Majinsky act, similar to what Obama brought in the States, which would severely affect Putin and his Capos by stopping the shovelling dodgy monies out of Russia and then living in luxury around London and donating to the Conservative party, instead they frustrate the policy with amendments and sneer shame at Corbyn for Partisan reasons, all because Corbyn is calling for tougher measures on Russian state money laundering practices, which this country is complicit in.
You really have no idea of Partisan.

 

[hullefc]

Rightly or wrong, while you're to an extent correct I do believe that Corbyn's history and previous stances haven't done him any favours.

That, or even with the evidence that has been disclosed to him he's still being overly cautious for whatever reason - but that's speculative.

You're missing my point - the evidence released for our consumption is rightfully nowhere near what is actually available as per normal procedure.

When there's a murder, do the police release all their evidence? No, as to do so would prejudice any future proceeding and weaken their case.

In such cases, we simply have to rely on the judgement of those in the judiciary and those we've rightfully elected into positions within power.

So to say it's flimsy, when you have received very little of what's available, is in my humble opinion questionable if not naive.

As regards to the Detective Sergeant, I mentioned in a earlier post that he 'reportedly' he also searched the man's home soon after the incident.

So, perhaps he came into direct and close contact with the agent in it's carried form? Or with the person who may have unwittingly carrying it?

And once again, you're asking about about why there's no arrests with all the CCTV - go back to my earlier post about possible reasons why.

Think about this one carefully... his daughter arrived from Moscow the day before and there's multiple traces of contamination since she arrived.

If the detective sergeant caught ill whilst searching the house, why wasn't the house quarantined with people in those chemical resistant suits? Why wasn't the street evacuated? Why weren't the residents all sent to hospital for check ups?

As far as his daughter arriving from Moscow why did they take ill together and at the same time? Similarly with the detective sergeant. Did she have the 'nerve agent' in her suitcase or in other bags? If they fell ill together then they must have taken it at the same time? Similarly with the detective sergeant.

When there is a murder the police release what they want the public to know. But this isn't murder. When there is an incident they release information and ask the public to try and help them solve the incident. They release CCTV footage and the likes. As they did with Parson's Green. But the only CCTV footage is the two Russians walking through an underpass at seeming perfectly happy and healthy, only to be slumped on a bench about an hour later. They had a drink in the restaurant and had their photo taken again happy and healthy. So it is between the restaurant and when they were spotted slumped on a bench that it was administered. Or they and the detective sergeant were contaminated at the same time and same place some time earlier.

What we are being fed is as flimsy as the weapons of mass destruction bull. Why this is the case is another matter.

 

[hullefc]

Rightly or wrong, while you're to an extent correct I do believe that Corbyn's history and previous stances haven't done him any favours.

That, or even with the evidence that has been disclosed to him he's still being overly cautious for whatever reason - but that's speculative.

This is the response when Corbyn 'doesn't do himself any favours'.

"Last September, only a week after Corbyn’s overwhelming election as leader, the Sunday Times quoted “a senior serving general”, who warned that “feelings are running very high within the armed forces” about the possibility of a Corbyn government. “You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security,” the officer went on. “You would see … generals directly and publicly challenging Corbyn over … Trident, pulling out of Nato and any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces … There would be mass resignations at all levels … which would effectively be a mutiny.” If Corbyn proved as militarily radical a premier as promised, “the army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that.”

On the Arrse website, contributors were typically blunt about what they thought the general meant. “This senior officer is talking about a coup,” wrote one. “Whats[sic] wrong with a Coup if the Generals are loyal to the Crown?” asked another. “Let her decide who runs the country?”

For anyone alarmed by all this, the official military response was not completely reassuring. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) merely described the general’s remarks as “not helpful”. The MoD “ruled out a leak inquiry”, the Independent reported, “on the grounds that it would be impossible to identify the culprit” – even though the Sunday Times had described the officer as “having served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s”.

Peter Wright exposed what happens when a Labour government isn't playing ball and falls out of favour with the military.

What was military grade 'nerve agent' again?

 

[peteblue]

Pete - if Brown (or any Labour government) had done what this Government and its immediate predecessor had done since 2010 you'd be the first one on here posting up allegations of treachery.

The Labour Party (not Corbyn) if in office would have reacted exactly the same as the conservatives. It’s a matter of leadership and protection not one of politics.....

 

[peteblue]

I'm not partisan, any authoritarian government that chats absolute wham, breaks pledges aots, attempts to shut down discussion,uses all the dirty tricks it can, fails to act ( except to talk big ) when we've been attacked, will get my criticism/scrutiny.

Nice try to reverse the roles though pete, anyone who reads this forum will know who's truly partisan.

What is this failure to act...

 

[PhilM]

If the detective sergeant caught ill whilst searching the house, why wasn't the house quarantined with people in those chemical resistant suits? Why wasn't the street evacuated? Why weren't the residents all sent to hospital for check ups?

As far as his daughter arriving from Moscow why did they take ill together and at the same time? Similarly with the detective sergeant. Did she have the 'nerve agent' in her suitcase or in other bags? If they fell ill together then they must have taken it at the same time? Similarly with the detective sergeant.

When there is a murder the police release what they want the public to know. But this isn't murder. When there is an incident they release information and ask the public to try and help them solve the incident. They release CCTV footage and the likes. As they did with Parson's Green. But the only CCTV footage is the two Russians walking through an underpass at seeming perfectly happy and healthy, only to be slumped on a bench about an hour later. They had a drink in the restaurant and had their photo taken again happy and healthy. So it is between the restaurant and when they were spotted slumped on a bench that it was administered. Or they and the detective sergeant were contaminated at the same time and same place some time earlier.

What we are being fed is as flimsy as the weapons of mass destruction bull. Why this is the case is another matter.

Not if it would be detrimental to the investigation as mentioned earlier! Also, I used murder as an example for it's the same procedure regardless.

And you keep mentioning CCTV - think carefully about this one: why not release it? Perhaps they already have identified a strong suspect.

However, for whatever reason, they're not able to question that person and therefore releasing the CCTV is inherently unnecessary.

And you refer to 'taking' the agent at the same time - why? Does it have to be ingestible? Or maybe it was aerosolized and survival in the air?

Or in a form that's able to pass through the skin membrane in its liquid state and can maintain in its form in the atmosphere for long periods?

Some agents in their liquid form are even completely inert (harmless) until combined with required compounds, when they become deadly.

Not all agents are designed to instantly cause death and harm either, some with large incubation periods - but I guess you know all that?

 

[hullefc]

Not if it would be detrimental to the investigation as mentioned earlier! Also, I used murder as an example for it's the same procedure regardless.

And you keep mentioning CCTV - think carefully about this one: why not release it? Perhaps they already have identified a strong suspect.

However, for whatever reason, they're not able to question that person and therefore releasing the CCTV is inherently unnecessary.

And you refer to 'taking' the agent at the same time - why? Does it have to be ingestible? Or maybe it was aerosolized and survival in the air?

Or in a form that's able to pass through the skin membrane in its liquid state and can maintain in its form in the atmosphere for long periods?

Some agents in their liquid form are even completely inert (harmless) until combined with required compounds, when they become deadly.

Not all agents are designed to instantly cause death and harm either, some with large incubation periods - but I guess you know all that?

'A strong suspect' and they haven't released this, really. They are shouting from the rooftops 'it's the Russians, it's the Russians'.Given that the UK government have expelled 23 Russian diplomats without any evidence it was the Russians, well the Putin's Russians, that done it. The government would be all over the airwaves with 'it's this Vlad, who is Putin's bessie mate and rides on horses without a top on like Putin'.

As far as how this 'nerve agent' made three people ill, if that is the case, that has not been answered by the government. All that has been said is it was a 'military/weapons grade nerve agent' that goes by the name 'nivochok' even though there is little scientific evidence, including the OPCW, that this exists. And we are supposed to take the government's word for it. Like Blair's. 'They really do have weapons of mass destruction, believe me'.

I have no doubt that 'nerve/chemical agents' can be administered in a number of ways and have incubation periods, by aerosols, powders on food, liquids. We will never know the complete how's about chemical weapons as this is what the likes of Porton Down's of this world research.

But the government can say with certainty, 'it was the Putin's' Russians'. Pull the other one.

 

[PhilM]

'A strong suspect' and they haven't released this, really. They are shouting from the rooftops 'it's the Russians, it's the Russians'.Given that the UK government have expelled 23 Russian diplomats without any evidence it was the Russians, well the Putin's Russians, that done it. The government would be all over the airwaves with 'it's this Vlad, who is Putin's bessie mate and rides on horses without a top on like Putin'.

As far as how this 'nerve agent' made three people ill, if that is the case, that has not been answered by the government. All that has been said is it was a 'military/weapons grade nerve agent' that goes by the name 'nivochok' even though there is little scientific evidence, including the OPCW, that this exists. And we are supposed to take the government's word for it. Like Blair's. 'They really do have weapons of mass destruction, believe me'.

I have no doubt that 'nerve/chemical agents' can be administered in a number of ways and have incubation periods, by aerosols, powders on food, liquids. We will never know the complete how's about chemical weapons as this is what the likes of Porton Down's of this world research.

But the government can say with certainty, 'it was the Putin's' Russians'. Pull the other one.

Yes and yes. I'll put it in laymen's terms for you - they have a strong idea who it is, how it was done and why, but that's not for public disclosure.

Firstly, on the most simple level the judicial process requires limited public disclosure to allow a fair investigation and any trial to be impartial.

Secondly, disclosure of information into the public realm may weaken the investigatory process, which can further lead to complications at trial.

As such, there are investigatory procedures that they're clearly and rightly following, however I doubt you have experience of them from all this.

With regards to the nerve agent's application, all the above applies alongside being exempt of FOI and also under the overall OSA umbrella.

There are things that people know, including the press, that they simply shouldn't and cannot be said and that's the nature of the beast.

I'm sure there's a fair few (ex)service or emergency-service individuals on here who know information which simply isn't allowed in the public realm.

So back to laymen's terms: there will be evidence, which the FCO, NATO and other powers will have been disclosed to, but not to the public.

OPCW are on their way so hopefully their objective assessment of the compound may help provide further 'evidence' of culpability.

 

[magicjuan]

Not if it would be detrimental to the investigation as mentioned earlier! Also, I used murder as an example for it's the same procedure regardless.

And you keep mentioning CCTV - think carefully about this one: why not release it? Perhaps they already have identified a strong suspect.

However, for whatever reason, they're not able to question that person and therefore releasing the CCTV is inherently unnecessary.

And you refer to 'taking' the agent at the same time - why? Does it have to be ingestible? Or maybe it was aerosolized and survival in the air?

Or in a form that's able to pass through the skin membrane in its liquid state and can maintain in its form in the atmosphere for long periods?

Some agents in their liquid form are even completely inert (harmless) until combined with required compounds, when they become deadly.

Not all agents are designed to instantly cause death and harm either, some with large incubation periods - but I guess you know all that?

Isn't this the deadliest nerve agent known? So, how do you determine the amount necessary to use? Surely the agent as described wouldn't have allowed them the ability to make it to a bench to slump. So, how much was released? Not enough to decimate the vicinity but enough for the military to use NBC suits, but not the local firemen.
Too many have gone Bond on all this and are immediately waiting for a photo of a bare chested Putin riding a horse and stroking a white cat.
It is right to ask questions and to go on anything other than official hearsay. Dr Kelly must be turning is his grave of natural causes...

 

[PhilM]

Isn't this the deadliest nerve agent known? So, how do you determine the amount necessary to use? Surely the agent as described wouldn't have allowed them the ability to make it to a bench to slump. So, how much was released? Not enough to decimate the vicinity but enough for the military to use NBC suits, but not the local firemen.
Too many have gone Bond on all this and are immediately waiting for a photo of a bare chested Putin riding a horse and stroking a white cat.
It is right to ask questions and to go on anything other than official hearsay. Dr Kelly must be turning is his grave of natural causes...

As mentioned before, Novichok is an umbrella term for a series of agents which have varying degrees of implementation and their lethality.

Also, the fact that they're both still alive and a policeman has suffered suggests that it was done sloppily - again, something I mentioned earlier.

It's fair that's there's an appetite for information but what is the public going to do with it? The less they know the better as far as I’m concerned.

We, the public, have no entitlement to demand ‘evidence’ unless we are selected for a jury. We have elected representatives to make decisions.

Further to that, nobody is going to show ‘us’ evidence because we can’t do anything with it - we play no part in the process.

And with regards to the suit, it's simple CBRN procedure and probably partly down to showing the government's response.

 

[hullefc]

Yes and yes. I'll put it in laymen's terms for you - they have a strong idea who it is, how it was done and why, but that's not for public disclosure.

Firstly, on the most simple level the judicial process requires limited public disclosure to allow a fair investigation and any trial to be impartial.

Secondly, disclosure of information into the public realm may weaken the investigatory process, which can further lead to complications at trial.

As such, there are investigatory procedures that they're clearly and rightly following, however I doubt you have experience of them from all this.

With regards to the nerve agent's application, all the above applies alongside being exempt of FOI and also under the overall OSA umbrella.

There are things that people know, including the press, that they simply shouldn't and cannot be said and that's the nature of the beast.

I'm sure there's a fair few (ex)service or emergency-service individuals on here who know information which simply isn't allowed in the public realm.

So back to laymen's terms: there will be evidence, which the FCO, NATO and other powers will have been disclosed to, but not to the public.

OPCW are on their way so hopefully their objective assessment of the compound may help provide further 'evidence' of culpability.

'They have a strong idea who it is? Have they? They have a strong idea how it was done and why? Have they? According to your good self they have. You are using assumptions unless you are privy to information that is not in the public domain, that is.

I'l repeat, there is no credible evidence that has been presented to indicate that Putin gave the orders for this incident. It is all conjecture and assumptions.

To quote your good self,

"I feel that a wave of support for these false-flag, anti-government mentalities has a huge part to play in while people are doubting the validity.

In no way am I saying the government is perfect and I do appreciate that their view of the truth is often somewhat jaded, but it's become absurd.

If growing swathes of the populous think the world is bloody flat, then believing that this is some form of Brexit conspiracy is for them small-fries.

Only last week, I had someone claiming that the BBC was untrustworthy because it was manipulated by the government, so they used RT instead.

The irony of it all simply went over his head! Often, the simplest and most logical argument is the correct one - it's not all bloody perverse".

Dismissing 'false flag' that leads to 'doubting the validity' was the exact same bull put around about weapons of mass destruction. Anyone, including Corbyn, that didn't say, 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and they will come and wipe out the UK in 45 minutes' were deemed to be using a 'false flag to question the validity'. Unfortunately for millions of Iriaqi's the validity was all to real.

The government's (their) 'view of the truth is somewhat jaded' is an understatement in the extreme. It is hardly absurd to question the government and what it is saying as it was with WMD. It is absurd not to question what the government are saying. As it is absurd not to question the government about their handouts from Russian oligarchs. But the likes of Johnson want to close that issue down because it is uncomfortable for them.

'Often the simplest and most logical argument is the correct one'. Yes it is. There is no evidence Putin is guilty and anyone who says otherwise is 'bloody perverse'.

The OPCW need to be on their way to a number of places including Porton Down and to the US and Israel and all those that have not sign the chemical treaty. The OPCW need to question the Russian scientist who wrote a book about making it to find out if he has been active again. But that would be absurd to mention that. Because? It was Putin and everyone and their dog knows it.

 

[hullefc]

As mentioned before, Novichok is an umbrella term for a series of agents which have varying degrees of implementation and their lethality.

Also, the fact that they're both still alive and a policeman has suffered suggests that it was done sloppily - again, something I mentioned earlier.

It's fair that's there's an appetite for information but what is the public going to do with it? The less they know the better as far as I’m concerned.

We, the public, have no entitlement to demand ‘evidence’ unless we are selected for a jury. We have elected representatives to make decisions.

Further to that, nobody is going to show ‘us’ evidence because we can’t do anything with it - we play no part in the process.

And with regards to the suit, it's simple CBRN procedure and probably partly down to showing the government's response.

How do you know it was this 'nivochok'? You are making an assumption based on the evidence presented by the government. All and sundry, apart from the likes of Corbyn said, 'of course Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction the government that could be released in 45 minute, because the government told us', to think otherwise is absurd.

If the areas were so contaminated that it required space suits, why wasn't the public evacuated and a the areas properly sealed? And why were fireman allowed to go anywhere near the areas without proper protective equipment?

As far as 'sloppily' goes. We are spun the line that it is the deadliest product known to man, and something like the size of a 'ball point pen tip' can kill someone. But three people have survived this 'military/weapons grade nerve agent' the 'nivochok'.

 

[DanEFC92]