Oh, FFS now weâve decided the Russians are definitely to blame and May is demanding an explanation on how it happened stating "⊠that if there was no âcredible responseâ by the end of Tuesday, the UK would conclude there has been an âunlawful use of forceâ by Moscow.
She said the UK must âstand ready to take much more extensive measuresâ against Russia than it had previously.
She said these measures would be set out in the Commons on Wednesday should there be no adequate explanation from RussiaâŠ".
From the article she seems to be working with the USA and France in the background against Russia, so with my tin foil hat on it smacks of a conveniently contrived event being used to further wider political interestsâ - Iâm saying this as a matter of opinion rather than known fact of courseâŠ
What we donât know here is the evidence thatâs been put to the Russian government. the agent used could, apparently, have been produced by any advanced country (altough it was developed in the Soviet Union in the 1970s). If the UK government has credible evidence pointing to Russia as the source of this attack, then presumably this will be presented to the Russian government. Whether thereâs any credible evidence or not, the Russian government will deny any involvement.
In other words, as is invariably the case in matters such as this, itâs a question of who (if anyone) you choose to believe.
I think I must be missing something with this conspiracy theory stuff. Russia havenât even denied they did it have they? Also, I thought Russian state TV made various nod-wink comments like âitâs very dangerous to betray your countryâ and stuff. I got the impression that it was supposed to be obvious it was Russia because thatâs the way they wanted it⊠but maybe Iâve been drawn in by the BBC propaganda machine (even though I donât watch or read BBC news).
the prime minister went on to confirm what everyone already knew. That there were only two plausible scenarios. Either the Russian state had authorised the attack or a rogue agent had got hold of some Russian nerve agent.
As @fowllyd said, developed by Russia doesnât mean that no one else could produce it.
For the record, Iâm not saying it definitely was Russia who did it - I have no idea - but Iâd think that a country accused of such a thing would say something like âRussia unequivocably denies involvement in thisâ rather than state-run TV saying âWell, itâs dangerous being a traitorâ and âthe claims are unfoundedâ.
Werenât we at peak gas supply in the cold snap the other week?
Seems that Russia may have us by the short and curlies if they decide to cut off our gas supply in retaliation to whatever the Govt decide is a firm response to the whole debacle.
Its now Spring, Humbley grove at Alton will be filling the depleted oil wells with gas so you can survive another winter this is a white elephant not an elephant in the room.
Whatâs the capacity? Thought we could only hold a couple of weeks worth and could we fill them whilst meeting current demand without imports? Even a small drop in supply would have devastating effects on the economy.
Which brings me back to this.
But the UK is unlikely to impose the one sanction that would damage Russia. âEuropean countries, including the UK, have arranged their sanctions policies so far in a way to carefully exclude the purchase of Russian gas,â said Simon Pirani, research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. âIn reality, for the UK as well as for most European countries, the realistic alternative sources of imported gas are very limited. American liquified natural gas is in the news, and as far as we can see from our research Russia is going to adopt a pricing policy to protect its European market share from American LNG.â
The yanks orchestrated it, using us to pressure the EU to stop buying off Russia and buy off them. Fucks Russia and gives them the business. Win win for America. Tillerson, Marcon and at least one bloke from NATO have already joined in.
If you donât like that idea, look at the Panama papers. Are they reopening the cases of the British people that died because of their connection, or just the Russians?
Exactly. Apparantly there are 16 countries who hold stocks of Novichok nerve agent, including The UK at Porton Down. It was developed and manufactured during the Cold War in the 1970s at the Soviet State Scientific Research Institute in Nukus, Uzbekistan. Since itâs independence in 1991 Uzbekistan has been working with the government of the United States to dismantle and decontaminate the sites where Novichok was developed and tested. Hmm.
The statement from May that Novichok can only be from a state laboratory is not true. In the words of Vil Merzayanov, a Russian chemist best known for revealing chemical weapons experimentation in Russia, particularly Novichok, âThe Novichok agents are far easiet to manufacture covertly because they can be made from common chemicals in relatively simple pesticide factoriesâ. âThe weapons originality lies in the simplicity of itâs components, which are used in civilian industry which cannot therefore be regulated by international expertsâ. For making that statement, Merzayanov was tried for treason in Russia. However the case collapsed and he left Russia to live in the United States, where presumably his skills as a chemical weapons expert continued.
Although it is quite likely that the Russian State are behind this incident, they are surely not the only suspects. Proof must be shown, just standing up in Parliament spouting nonsense about Russia must be guilty because Novichok was developed there, albeit 50 odd years ago, just isnât good enough. The UK invented VX nerve agent - does that make us responsible for the murder of Kim Jong-unâs brother? Using our governmentâs logic it does!
Right from the start of this incident there has been a concerted campaign to brainwash people into finding Russia responsible, regardless of any evidence, no other suspects have been considered, even though there are more than a few parties who would be interested in the demise of Skripal. Immediately there were calls for the World Cup to be boycotted, reports this morning that pressure is being put on Australia and other countries to support a boycott. It is so transparent. It caan pretty much be taken as read that Prince William and his half-brother wonât be allowed to go, alongside other UK officials. Now we have the USA chiming in, piling on the âdemonize Russiaâ mantra. Clear evidence of Russian culpability is whatâs needed before any sanctions are taken. Fat chance of that with the current absolute shower running the show.
If I had to guess I would say seize russian owned assets in the UK (see recent changes to the POCA 2002 by the Criminal Finances Act for civil forfeiture).
It would be nice to own London again, wouldnât it?
