Current Affairs Critically ill man is former Russian spy

[PhilM]

'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'.

There is no evidence in the public realm - yet. As investigations continue, including by OPCW over the next fortnight, it'll become clearer.

Genuine question: would you be content if all the information was now released for your pleasure and subsequently that stopped any criminal trial?

All your other questions I've pretty much gone over on at least one occasion. And no, my judgement is not based on simply the government's spiel.

 

[magicjuan]

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.

We the public have no entitlement to demand evidence.

Ok.

Let's just leave that there eh?

 

[PhilM]

We the public have no entitlement to demand evidence.

Ok.

Let's just leave that there eh?

When it comes to ongoing criminal proceedings or matters of national security then no went don’t, which this is both.

 

[magicjuan]

When it comes to ongoing criminal proceedings or matters of national security then no went don’t, which this is both.

You're describing a junta, not governance.

 

[hullefc]

There is no evidence in the public realm - yet. As investigations continue, including by OPCW over the next fortnight, it'll become clearer.

Genuine question: would you be content if all the information was now released for your pleasure and subsequently that stopped any criminal trial?

All your other questions I've pretty much gone over on at least one occasion. And no, my judgement is not based on simply the government's spiel.

No 'evidence in the public realm - yet'. I've heard that one before many many a time. Only for it to be bull. Weapons of mass destruction springs to mind, 'we can't tell you everything but believe us'. Or evidence that was so 'cast iron' it showed their guilt, only to be overturned due to miscarriage of justice. Not all 'in the public realm- yet' but some selectively put in the public domain to give the impression of guilt.

Criminal trials are brought with much more 'evidence in the public realm' being released than you seem to be implying with this case. There have been many criminal trials that have taken place with 'leaked' evidence by this or that person to show the person or persons is/are 'guilty'. The media have been allowed on many many occasion to release information that shows the guilt of someone. That evidence, along with other evidence, is then presented in court and people found guilty only to be released due to a miscarriage of justice. As you well know.

In this case a trial wont be stopped no matter how much 'evidence' is released because all and sundry knows 'Putin gave the orders and it was carried out by one of his mates'. A Russian is guilty even before a trial has begun. All the state will do is find a connection between Putin and said person or persons. Maybe riding bare-chested on a horse. It will be that smug and sarcastic.

Evidence is selectively and deliberately released to point the finger of guilt. As has happened on far too many occasions. Selective evidence is released to attempt to lay the blame of guilt on someone. In this case to ratchet up the war, war against a person who has fallen out of favour with the west, because he wont allow the US to do what it wants, in particular in Syria, and is now deemed an enemy. The parallels with Saddam Hussein are all to evident.

'Released for your pleasure', really. Weapons of mass destruction and the 45 minute launch was used to justify invading Iraq and the death of hundreds of thousands, if not over a million, and a country destroyed. Egged on by the house of commons, with the exception of a handful of people, including Corbyn. Isn't it a pity that we all weren't privy to the information Blair received so that we could make up our mind and put pressure on the warmongers? Very much like now. The government want to ratchet up the war,war against Russia and they want us to blindly follow and shout 'go gett'em Boris'.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Democracy in action.

 

[magicjuan]

Democracy in action.

Hanging chadskis...

 

[peteblue]

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.

You’re wasting your time really, the left wingers just won’t understand what you are saying, and those that do just won’t accept it. For them it has nothing to do with actual events and all to do with the party in power.....ergo, slag off the Tories and discredit anything they say..........

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

If BoJo is correct with his accusations that Russia has been known to be stock piling Chemical weapons for the last ten years what on earth was May doing as Home secretary trying to supresss Litvinenko inquiry.

 

[Mr. White]

Democracy in action.

Wow...that footage was quickly released. It's as if those involved we're completely unaware that there was a CCTV camera on the wall looking directly at them.

It could be genuine footage from a Russian polling station; it could be in a studio at GCHQ. Who knows!? This footage by itself proves nothing. Without further evidence, this clip could be designed to manipulate opinion.

 

[OnlyBlueWillDo]

We the public have no entitlement to demand evidence.

Ok.

Let's just leave that there eh?

We will get know everything, just like we did with Litvinenko.

 

[OnlyBlueWillDo]

Wow...that footage was quickly released. It's as if those involved we're completely unaware that there was a CCTV camera on the wall looking directly at them.

It could be genuine footage from a Russian polling station; it could be in a studio at GCHQ. Who knows!? This footage by itself proves nothing. Without further evidence, this clip could be designed to manipulate opinion.

 

[Mr. White]

Nope. I'm not a conspiracy theorist nut job, far from it. Just question what you see, don't take it at face value.

 

[magicjuan]

You’re wasting your time really, the left wingers just won’t understand what you are saying, and those that do just won’t accept it. For them it has nothing to do with actual events and all to do with the party in power.....ergo, [Poor language removed] off the Tories and discredit anything they say..........

I had exactly the same stance with Blair over Iraq, as did many others, or were all those on the march non political?

That's just a crass statement, more politicised than those you're accusing.

Please use the irony font provided.

 

[OnlyBlueWillDo]

Nope. I'm not a conspiracy theorist nut job, far from it. Just question what you see, don't take it at face value.