📰 The most exciting thing to happen in Salisbury since Stonehenge was created

Reasonably serious discussion
1643

That’s really good. Well done.

1644

I’m talking pure Novichok in first statement. Hybrid in second (IE contains Novichok.

I’ll answer your questions above in the long barely readable post when you ask questions, rather than just muse. A question has a question mark at the end, so either amend that diatribe above, or ask a question directly here.

In the meantime, let’s try this again. I asked you which country you thought is above Russia in the ‘whodunnit’ stakes, as you said Russia is not at the top of your list. Hence you must have someone else in mind that has more evidence (hard or circumstantial) currently lodged against it. So, who is it?

1645

So, let’s try this again.

I asked you which country you thought is above Russia in the ‘whodunnit’ stakes, as you said Russia is not at the top of your list. Hence you must have someone else in mind that has more evidence (hard or circumstantial) currently lodged against it. So, who is it?

1646

Is this a referendum? Black or white?
Is there a prize for whoever wins by 1%?
Can it not be
Russia 34%
UK 33%
Someone else 33%

Can we not also have a something is still fishy section in the vote?

1647

Of course it can - absolutely.

SOS is saying that he doesn’t think that Russia is the most likely country to have carried this out. I’m just asking if not, then who, and why?

1648

Ffs


Was it Trump or Theresa?

1649

Like the Brexit threadI can’t follow this anymore. Unfollowing 5, 4,3,2


1650

You want him to provide complete answers to everything in order for him to prove his case? I’m sorry, but that’s eerily reminiscent of some of the exchanges I’ve had in the past.

It’s a completely unreasonable standard to demand, even if the petitioner were the most intelligent person on Earth, which I think we can all agree that none of us are.

The government is lying on something at least. In their retrofit assessment of these bellendcat bell ends, they cited that:-

  • they knew what hotel they were staying at
  • they knew that then

The hotel has continued to do business when the local Italian restaurant and loads of other Salisbury businesses were on lockdown; not a single garlic bread leaving or entering the building. Yet this hotel, which the alleged perpetrators stayed at, presumably with the Novichok, remained open with people coming and going, to’ing and fro’ing, all around one of the world’s deadliest nerve agents.

Our authorities either didn’t know that then or didn’t give a shit about public safety.

1651

I haven’t demanded anything of the sort. I’ve just asked him why he thinks another country is more likely to have done it than Russia, and which country that is?

Where it says ‘why’ above, it’s his reasons why he thinks that country, not the country’s reasons for attempting to kill the Skripal’s.

1652

People keep forgetting onus probandi, don’t they. Maybe because otherwise the story falls apart. Chertsey is just doing what May, Pfeffel, Javid, Wallace, little gav and Sanchez are all doing, as the fairytale is impossible to make sense of.
Gaslighting?

“Leaving aside their egregious flouting of the elemental principle of English justice, note that they’re uttering this logical idiocy: Russia must have done it because it hasn’t proved it didn’t. Note also, in Javid’s speech, the amusing suggestion that Russia keeps changing its story; but to fit into the official British story “novichok” must be an instantly lethal slow acting poison which dissipates quickly but lasts for months.”

1653

So, let’s try this again.

I asked you which country you thought is above Russia in the ‘whodunnit’ stakes, as you said Russia is not at the top of your list. Hence you must have someone else in mind that has more evidence (hard or circumstantial) currently lodged against it. So, who is it?

1654

This thread is such a Saints related thread these days.
Lots of shots but no goals scored and a failure to make any points

1 Like
1655

Oddly, still not released evidence to the public


1656

What’s your point?

1657

I would have thought if they had evidence of what happened they’d have released it and embarrassed the Saudi’s.

1658

What’s your point?

1659

Well, it seems odd doesn’t it?

1660

What seems odd is your attempt to equate the two cases and imply that the Turkish are doing the same as we did with the Skripals.

Can I ask the obvious questions that seem to have eluded you?

  • What sort of building does a Chief Prosecutor work in?
  • What sort of thing do they do in that building?
1661

What’s your point? The Russians won’t extradite the agents so British prosecutors can’t/won’t get involved.

1662

There’s no reason they could not be tried in absentia. Evidence could be presented in such a trial.

Do you think if our authorities had the Russians bang to rights, we wouldn’t be doing the same?

I think you’re going to end up very wrong on this one. If I were in Turkey’s position, and I had evidence that had the Saudis bang to rights, I’d be highlighting all of that through the legal system.

How better to delegitimise a regional opponent like Saudi Arabia, still actually crucifying people in 2018, involved in illegal wars in Yemen, and extrajudicial operations overseas, than to have a nice high profile legal proceeding where you drip feed zingers over an extended period of time?

Even without this case, the Saudis have behaved appallingly on the international stage, yet you want us to blindly accept whatever our government says, even though it sells weapons to this murderous regime so that it can bomb children.

I don’t think we’re asking much, @WorzelScummage. When we accuse an entire country of complicity in a baffling event four hours after it happened, I’d like to know that we have more evidence than your local beak would need to prosecute an ABH.

We’re nowhere close.