Critically ill man 'former Russian spy'

The quote was not out of context (I've just read and re-read both of your links to clarify). All that has been pointed out was the fact that three people had been poisoned (in red above) and nobody else had shown any symptoms of the poison.
You need to re-re-read them then. In the letter, he says that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, and that three patients have experienced significant poisoning. In the report on the letter, the Times report him (using a mixture of direct and indirect quoting) as saying that "no patients experienced symptoms other than the three with 'significant poisoning'". That is out of context insofar as the "symptoms" that he says "no patients" have experienced are the symptoms of nerve agent poisoning. His statement is absolute. He doesn't say that no patients other than three have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, which is what the Times writer is giving readers to understand. He says no patients at all have, in Salisbury.

Medics and especially senior medics are good at writing letters. If he had meant to write that apart from the three patients who have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, no other patients have experienced symptoms of significant poisoning, he would have done.
 
You need to re-re-read them then. In the letter, he says that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, and that three patients have experienced significant poisoning. In the report on the letter, the Times report him (using a mixture of direct and indirect quoting) as saying that "no patients experienced symptoms other than the three with 'significant poisoning'". That is out of context insofar as the "symptoms" that he says "no patients" have experienced are the symptoms of nerve agent poisoning. His statement is absolute. He doesn't say that no patients other than three have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, which is what the Times writer is giving readers to understand. He says no patients at all have, in Salisbury.
You need to brush up on your usage.
Medics and especially senior medics are good at writing letters. If he had meant to write that apart from the three patients who have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, no other patients have experienced symptoms of significant poisoning, he would have done.
Where did you get this gem from? You'd not be saying that if you managed to decipher my medical notes.
 
One aspect that I do not think has been mentioned in the past 1400+ posts.

An assassin is sent to kill someone regarded as a traitor.
He had one job, to kill one man (assuming the daughter to be collateral damage)
He blew it. Yes, the victims are very poorly at the moment but they are not dead which one would assume was the objective.
I wonder if the agent was attenuated in some form to make it safer to use. Perhaps the assassin was afraid of self-contamination and did not disperse it in the way he had been directed to disperse it.
I wonder what sort of welcome the assassin will receive when he returns to the Rodina.
 
One aspect that I do not think has been mentioned in the past 1400+ posts.

An assassin is sent to kill someone regarded as a traitor.
He had one job, to kill one man (assuming the daughter to be collateral damage)
He blew it. Yes, the victims are very poorly at the moment but they are not dead which one would assume was the objective.
I wonder if the agent was attenuated in some form to make it safer to use. Perhaps the assassin was afraid of self-contamination and did not disperse it in the way he had been directed to disperse it.
I wonder what sort of welcome the assassin will receive when he returns to the Rodina.
The assassins(s) will get the same pat on the back as Lugovoy did and will be dragged out to taunt us every now and again.
 
One aspect that I do not think has been mentioned in the past 1400+ posts.

An assassin is sent to kill someone regarded as a traitor.
He had one job, to kill one man (assuming the daughter to be collateral damage)
He blew it. Yes, the victims are very poorly at the moment but they are not dead which one would assume was the objective.
I wonder if the agent was attenuated in some form to make it safer to use. Perhaps the assassin was afraid of self-contamination and did not disperse it in the way he had been directed to disperse it.
I wonder what sort of welcome the assassin will receive when he returns to the Rodina.
The deed had its intended effect regardless of whether Colonel Skripal snuffs it. He's not going to be dancing the cancan any time soon. No one wants to end up like him & Britain has the heebiejeebies. Result.
 
Plainly this current spat has energised the Russian electorate in their unending support for Putin, as they seem to be voting heavily for him, again & again & again...

 
You need to re-re-read them then. In the letter, he says that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, and that three patients have experienced significant poisoning. In the report on the letter, the Times report him (using a mixture of direct and indirect quoting) as saying that "no patients experienced symptoms other than the three with 'significant poisoning'". That is out of context insofar as the "symptoms" that he says "no patients" have experienced are the symptoms of nerve agent poisoning. His statement is absolute. He doesn't say that no patients other than three have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, which is what the Times writer is giving readers to understand. He says no patients at all have, in Salisbury.

Medics and especially senior medics are good at writing letters. If he had meant to write that apart from the three patients who have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, no other patients have experienced symptoms of significant poisoning, he would have done.
But his letter, having used the term "nerve agent", goes on to say "No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved." Which directly contradicts your interpretation. I still wonder if Mr Davies' letter was chopped by the letters page editor, which often happens.
 
The majority of those willing to go on camera either aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer or are taking the piss.
Yes, watching the early news reports I was tremendously sympathetic towards the stricken Salisburians who seemed to have been rendered gibbering, dribbling, babbling fools by the nerve agent’s malign influence.
Then I realised that this was their natural state. Maybe they should have a snort of the old nerve gas on the basis that two negatives make a positive.
 
Not qualified to talk about the technailities of international finance but cant see how you can prove that money brought in to be invested from overseas can be proved to be dodgey, OK in UK to prove money came from drugs, pimping or tax evasion but my little old grannie in Minsk had some gold bars in her cellar they hid during the revolution type thing. Or I picked up an oil well on the cheap in 1991.

As for speaking his mind, public bars are full of old boys with half a pint of mild and the Daily Mirror gobbing off how the world is wrong, against them and how they will fix it. Anyhow with todays breaking news on BBC respect McDonald the old boy might have some incomming problems PDQ.
I'll ignore the last bit as obsessive diatribe.

I'm also no tax lawyer, but believe the legislators foresaw the same problem you do and so bounced the burden of proof round on the would be tax dodger/money launderer. No different to trying to claim back business expenses without receipts, if you like.

Lots of these regulations are replicated internationally, I think I'm right in saying including Russia. It could be more embarrassing for Dobby having his muckers explain away the billions they've shipped out of Mother Russia than have Wendoline wag a disapproving, but ineffectual, finger in his direction. That's just an opportunity for more jingoistic knuckle dragger posturing which the Ivan's seem to lap up.
 
Prompted by someone's remark above, I looked at Robert Peston's programme on ITV to see what that very vile creature McDonnell had to say about the whole affair, but was so Offended by the format of the 'show' and Peston himself - it seems to be a vibrant mix of breakfast TV primary colours, gameshow host-assistant exchanges and hysterical presenter - that I gave up and went back to being nasty to Guardian/Observer columnists on my keyboard. It really is clear now that Andrew Neil is the only Host in this segment of our telly output who matters.
 
The Salisbury NHS Trust has been very clear in other statements that nerve agent poisoning is involved.

Following the incident in Salisbury on Sunday, we are treating three inpatients at Salisbury District Hospital. A man in his 60s and a women in her 30s remain in a critical, but stable condition in intensive care after being exposed to a nerve agent.​

Statement, 9 March, from the Director of Nursing at Salisbury hospital found here. Pre-dates Stephen Davies' letter, but I have to say that when I read it, it seemed clear that he was talking about the 38 patients who'd turned up fearing that they'd been exposed to the agent and who turned out (I suspect entirely unsurprisingly in some cases) not to have been.

That said, I notice that various Twitter accounts/websites with a 'All Hail St Jeremy! Long Live Vladimir Vladimirovich!' approach to life), and/or with headgear sponsored by Bacofoil have taken the letter out of the wider context to 'prove' that nerve agent wasn't used.
 
I'll ignore the last bit as obsessive diatribe.

I'm also no tax lawyer, but believe the legislators foresaw the same problem you do and so bounced the burden of proof round on the would be tax dodger/money launderer. No different to trying to claim back business expenses without receipts, if you like.

Lots of these regulations are replicated internationally, I think I'm right in saying including Russia. It could be more embarrassing for Dobby having his muckers explain away the billions they've shipped out of Mother Russia than have Wendoline wag a disapproving, but ineffectual, finger in his direction. That's just an opportunity for more jingoistic knuckle dragger posturing which the Ivan's seem to lap up.
At the end of the day any action will be a lawyers playground and a win win for them. There seems to be a smear campaign building up against Russians in this country that they are all gangsters, dodgey with the odd spy on the run. Neo- racest?
 
Last edited:
I don't think they'd have to. Isn't the point of money laundering regs that it's up to the investor to show their dosh is legit?
No, that's dealt with by an "Unexplained Wealth Order".

The principal obligations wrt money laundering lie with the intermediating financial institutions, who must satisfy themselves as to the "origin of funds".
 
No, that's dealt with by an "Unexplained Wealth Order".

The principal obligations wrt money laundering lie with the intermediating financial institutions, who must satisfy themselves as to the "origin of funds".
Thanks, tell us more. Presumably the bank has to apply a reasonable standard of proof and there are sanctions for not doing so?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads