What is fishy about it though?
Really? There are 900 posts on this thread Cherts.
2 Likes
A few caveats there Sherlock/Ironside/ColumboâŚ
I know, and there is nothing substantiated in any of them. If we could have a list of exactly what was fishy, so we could go through and debunk the myths, that would be great.
However, without a trial certain people wonât be interested in listening.
Really, Cherts?
You believe that?
Tin foil coated maybe Baz, tinfoil coated
Teflon more like to deflect relevance and more likely scenarios.
Thatâs a good idea.
One thing that really bugs me is whether we truly know how the Skripals were poisoned⌠These two geezers are supposed to have sprayed the novichok onto Skripals door handle (I think thatâs the current theory). However their cctv movements show them passing the house after the Skripals had left. This seems a bit âinconsistentâ.
1 Like
Nah, being funny.
But he does look good in a Russian hat.
1 Like
You want it to be, what were they doing there?
But there is CCTV showing them going back innit? Thatâs what I read.
A trial? (an open one)
Do you really think that either the UK or Russia governments would allow that to happen?
The truth would get out and if shady dealings and untruths peddled then the fuckers would be voted out on their arses (in the UK at least).
Of course it wonât happen, the Russians know theyâre guilty as hell and have no idea what proof the British Government have.
The Skripals going back? I havenât read that anywhere. Can you remember where you read that?
1 Like
True
Even more of a wanker in a Liverpool scarf last weekend *
*ok could have been a Labour one.
Your not thinking legally. The prime minister, ex foreign secretary and the whole of the msm have already declared their guilt. Fair trail?
If you now think there could be a fair trial in this country, your as led as Barry. Considering their statements, there should have been enough of a release to back it up.
Fucking exam table, are you and Barry related?
They said no such thing. Read the reports. I have put them on here(at least one of them).
Again, any real evidence would do. We have none(released) just might haves and maybes.
It wouldnât make it to a court of law if certain people didnât know that Russia canât extradite its own citizens, as itâs against their laws. Thatâs worked very well before, but Mueller got caught out and it could happen again as Putin looks like heâs playing a game with our lot(TV appearance was planned and they donât put their own SS on TV).
Not in any released cctv.
It was either a Guardian or Channel 4 article - saying the BMW had been captured on a neighbourâs (further up the road) showing the car leaving the road again a couple of hours later.
The British know theyâre guilty as hell and have no idea why the Russians put those two on TV.
Itâs so easy to play with a narrative that has nothing to back it up.
Simple question, why wonât our government/SS release the fingerprints? They were taken, unless these two came in through back channels(paperwork wise).
That would look shit in court, donât you think?
Youâre not thinking legally here. They would not release real evidence, as they want the Russians to hang themselves first.