Critically ill man 'former Russian spy'

It's like trying to talk to a door with you.

The onus is on the accuser not the accused.
That's the way it's always worked.

The defence phase of a trial occurs after the prosecution phase.

Cards on the table

In this case ru has been convicted and tried by gov/media with no evidence and no proof , before one breakthrough is even made in plod's 4mth investigation.
It's just that you seem such an expert on who it isn't. Therefore, you must know who it is.

Would you not agree that it is reasonable to think that the Russians might be involved in the attempted murder (using a Russian developed CW) of a former Russian spy?
Also, given the fact that Russia has form for murdering former state employees in the UK by "exotic" means?
I did ask you to comment on this some pages back but you declined to do so.
Also, given the fact that Russia has form for shooting down civil airliners, invading other countries & generally ignoring international law & sticking two fingers up at the rest of the world,
 
Last edited:
It's like trying to talk to a door with you.

The onus is on the accuser not the accused.
That's the way it's always worked.

The defence phase of a trial occurs after the prosecution phase.

Cards on the table

In this case ru has been convicted and tried by gov/media even before one breakthrough is even made in plod's 4mth investigation.
If it wasn't Russia then who?

You won't give a alternate theory because actually you are a coward with no remotely credible explanation that would come close to casting doubt on Russia's guilt.
 
In this case ru has been convicted and tried by gov/media with no evidence and no proof , before one breakthrough is even made in plod's 4mth investigation.
When was that trial? Or are you being a bit of a drama queen and making things up again? ‘Highly likely’ Russian govt and ongoing murder investigation.
 
I think, from the amount of time that they spend here and the trillions of pixels that they expend that Grey Fox and 118 know in their heart of hearts that the Russians did it.
 
It's like trying to talk to a door with you.

The onus is on the accuser not the accused.
That's the way it's always worked.

The defence phase of a trial occurs after the prosecution phase.

Cards on the table

In this case ru has been convicted and tried by gov/media with no evidence and no proof , before one breakthrough is even made in plod's 4mth investigation.
Of course the funny thing is that when the truth finally comes out ( which I am sure it will) and Russia is shown to be to blame, you will be among those crying out that it is 'false news' and all made up by the UK Government in an effort to discredit Russia!
 
Eric Arthur Blair would be spinning in his grave at your group-naivety and willingness to abandon
common-sense just to fit in with the herd.

If it's a slam-dunk, as they said 4months ago:
Where's the proof?
Where's one shred of evidence...
...Of any of it, so far..?

Where would the world be without useful flanges like you?

Keep it up.
You're doing really well.
Stop posting fantastical crap, you tinfoil encrusted cretin.

Russian government operatives, either salaried or hired, have murdered at least two people in the UK.
Your shit's so stale even the flies aren't interested.
 
Casting doubt on Russia's guilt.
Casting doubt on Russia's guilt?

You've made my point.

What convinces you that Russia is guilty before one shred of evidence has been ascertained?

Is it 'cos they were the only suspects on offer?

They didn't even blame IS this time, it was straight to the Ru within days.
It was a dead-cert.... Even the snaky politicians said it definite.... Only Ru could do this.

18wks later??

Still no proof but.... hey, who need's proof?
I haven't seen any evidence because I am not part of the investigation team.
The simple application of Occam's razor, the information released so far and the huge amount of historical precedent as regards Russia's appalling behaviour leads me to agree with the official statement that it was'highly likely' to have been Russia. My position and reasoning has been made clear to you a number of times.

You keep saying the face of all normal reasoning it wasn't Russia. That means you must have at least one alternative theory as to who it was.

Why do you not have the balls to tell us - it's a niche internet message board, not Chatham House?
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
This is Current Affairs. There are rules.

User @184461 didn't follow them so he is now banned.

Last warning to the remained if you
 
They are using subtlety.
It is no more than your interpretation and your private opinion.
If OPCW accused Russia or any other country then it would be clearly written in official documents.
That’s why they’ve asked.
They asked exactly what they asked - no more, no less.
PD found what they called Novichok.
So it would be logical to expect that PD will provide complete information about the poison to OPCW. Maybe chemical that PD calls as Novichok was developed in PD. Who knows?
OPCW confirmed U.K. assesment.
So OPCW experts having samples and formula of the poison are able to make conclusions themselves.
OPCW ask all parties to identify the “toxic chemicals been identified as, or are suspected of being, new types of nerve agents.”
Alas, Russia was not given by any samples to identify the toxic chemicals. Explain me please, how it is possible to help with identification without any samples?
No. The question is please help us identify these new toxic chemicals
OK, but give us samples.
If Russia invented Novichok, didn’t declare it, it’s been used in Salisbury and OPCW are asking for information on it, guess what? Russia didn’t declare all CW.
Something that is being called as Novichok was invented long ago, in Soviet times.
As I remember, any country has right to produce any toxic chemicals for testing purposes in small quantities (100 ml) and has no obligation to register it as CW.
 
Last edited:
It is no more than your interpretation and your private opinion.
If OPCW accused Russia or any other country then it would be clearly written in official documents.

They asked exactly what they asked - no more, no less.

So it would be logical to expect that PD will provide complete information about the poison to OPCW. Maybe chemical that PD calls as Novichok was developed in PD. Who knows?

So OPCW experts having samples and formula of the poison are able to make conclusions themselves.

Alas, Russia was not given by any samples to identify the toxic chemicals. Explain me please, how it is possible to help with identification without any samples?

OK, but give us samples.

Something that is being called as Novichok was invented long ago, in Soviet times.
As I remember, any country has right to produce any toxic chemicals for testing purposes in small quantities (100 ml) and has no obligation to register it as CW.
For goodness sake; are you clutching at straws or tiĺting at windmills?

Are you saying it is ok for Russia to continue to produce N.A. so long as it is 100ml.

Is that 100ml total or lots and lots of 100ml bottles using the Russian."we only have 100ml bottle...."

I also note your English has improved overnight. Keep it up.
 
Is that 100ml total or lots and lots of 100ml bottles using the Russian."we only have 100ml bottle...."
They're getting confused with the rules for carry-ons for the airlines, I'm fairly sure that's for cosmetics, drinks etc and not lethal chemical agents - except maybe Aeroflot
 
For goodness sake; are you clutching at straws or tiĺting at windmills?

Are you saying it is ok for Russia to continue to produce N.A. so long as it is 100ml.

Is that 100ml total or lots and lots of 100ml bottles using the Russian."we only have 100ml bottle...."

I also note your English has improved overnight. Keep it up.
They're getting confused with the rules for carry-ons for the airlines, I'm fairly sure that's for cosmetics, drinks etc and not lethal chemical agents - except maybe Aeroflot
I'm happy to inform you my friends
Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia
A treaty party may declare a "single small-scale facility" that produces up to 1 tonne of Schedule 1 chemicals for research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective purposes each year, and also another facility may produce 10 kg per year for protective testing purposes.
Of course such factories have to be declared. At the same time
An unlimited number of other facilities may produce Schedule 1 chemicals, subject to a total 10 kg annual limit, for research, medical or pharmaceutical purposes, but any facility producing more than 100 grams must be declared
So any laboratory can produce up to 100 grams of any poisonous chemicals without obligation to notify OPCW.
 
...... a little like your memory on other threads for explaining the use of links to older postings which you can link to in an instant and also your variable grasp of English which is sometimes amazing good. Perhaps it's a nervous issue.
When challenged you revert to poor English and appear to write "with an accent". Have you thought of seeking treatment?
 
My, That briefing took a long time to get back. Obfuscation, denial and whataboutery 101.

It is no more than your interpretation and your private opinion.
If OPCW accused Russia or any other country then it would be clearly written in official documents.
It’s as subtle as a sledge hammer, but you don’t see it with your blinkers
They asked exactly what they asked - no more, no less.

So it would be logical to expect that PD will provide complete information about the poison to OPCW. Maybe chemical that PD calls as Novichok was developed in PD. Who knows?
Why? OPCW already have the same samples PD made their findings on.
So OPCW experts having samples and formula of the poison are able to make conclusions themselves.
OPCW already have the samples PD made their findings on.
Alas, Russia was not given by any samples to identify the toxic chemicals. Explain me please, how it is possible to help with identification without any samples?
Because it’s in one of your secret labs. Not declared.
Something that is being called as Novichok was invented long ago, in Soviet times.
Indeed. Was it declared as part of your stocks? If OPCW want to identify it, it would appear it wasn’t declared and so not on the list.
As I remember, any country has right to produce any toxic chemicals for testing purposes in small quantities (100 ml) and has no obligation to register it as CW.
You are allowed to produce small samples for testing and evaluation. Not for weaponisation.

E2A: Logically this is also what OPCW are asking about.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top