News story: Novichok nerve agent use in Salisbury: UK government response

Slime

LE

Slime

LE
Reasonable questions even repeated many times remain reasonable questions.
Oh dear, realising he has been completely busted he is trying to bluff his way out.

Just a Shame he forgot to mention the fact his questions have been answered.

What an absolute dick.

He could really do with a Russian Troll banner like the other trolls.
 
Reasonable questions even repeated many times remain reasonable questions.
Pushing the same misinformation shows a lack of reading HOTO notes or peddling agitprop. You know why, it was explained on numerous occasions
And reasonable arguments even repeated many times remain reasonable arguments.
And peddling misinformation means agitprop troll.
 

Slime

LE
Pushing the same misinformation shows a lack of reading HOTO notes or peddling agitprop. You know why, it was explained on numerous occasions

And peddling misinformation means agitprop troll.
A while ago KGB said he didn’t have access to the BBC.

Just as well, or he would have seen that documentary on SDH from early March last year that was on BBC2 very late one night.

The documentary was pulled by UKGOV as there was a short scene in it that gave away one of the secrets of the U.K. investigation.

It showed some nurses at a nursing station, but in the background was a notice board advertising NHS vacancies in SDH.
One job said: IMMEDIATE START, Rodent operatives needed, must be familiar with all sorts of knots and be fluent in Russian. Operatives will be under the supervision of the cellar manager.
 

Slime

LE
It seems the latest agitprop is that as the GRU officer is bang to rights in yet another pic, and as the Russian government can’t pretend its anything other than it is one of the named GRU officers they are just getting their useful idiots to say the picture doesn’t prove anything.

While it does prove something I suppose the trolls will hope we forget all the other proof that already exists, or that we forget their previous lies on this subject.

I am reminded that one of the trolls said one of the GRU officers had been posthumously awarded a particular medal...............only for the photo of that GRU officer to be seen on the wall of a GRU building (in a photo section for GRU officers) and shown wearing that medal while alive. :)
 
And what does it prove?
As for my questions then, apparently you avoid constructive discussion.
No
I have a life

I shall be responding to your points
You however have been avoiding discussion on the points I have been raising to you, so it’s a bit of a stretch to claim I’m totally ignoring you over a matter of hours
 
One of the things I have done tonight is to go out for the evening with a couple of nice ladies, we stopped at the Greene Inn, formerly the Bishops Mill or the Mill

Nice atmosphere, other than when the volume was turned up for the football (it’s not really my thing, and not when I’m taking out a couple of ladies)
On the way out we noticed that we could have played some board games, I’d have liked a nice game of Cluedo - I reckon Professor Plumski did it on the door-handle with the novichock.



3DC0F232-9524-48BF-9015-B6BF219F0738.jpeg
6690F23B-E035-4CEA-92F1-C031312D8EB3.jpeg
 
As I understand you would like to continue discussion and don't object participation of my modest person in it.
Well, why not? I'm ready for constructive discussion.
You’ve quoted a post that I made on Thursday - that’s taken 4 days, and you get upset that I’ve taken 5 hours to respond
Triggered ? Or faux outrage?
But what conclusion we can make?
1. Suppose that the Skripals returned home then why do you think the authorities continue to keep silence in this case? Have you any logical explanation?
I have a logical explanation - the Skripals returned home and the Russian government are distracting with disinformation


Why are the authorities ‘keeping silent’?
You tell me why the ‘authorities’ need to publish absolutely every little detail ?
Like for example evidence which is to be presented in court and would be made available to the defence for their preparation prior to going to court etc


2. Suppose that the Skripals didn't return home then the explanation of the silence is on the surface. Such an information would create an alibi for the 'tourists' that British authorities try to avoid as far as possible.
As previously raised with your friends and your self .... even on the very obscure likelihood that Russia wants to keep muddying the waters with, if the Skripals never returned it does not render the innocence of your team, it just enlarges your team
It’s a load of bollocks though
British authorities could ask Russian ones to question the suspects on Russian soil. It hasn't been done and note, there is no any explanation. Why do you think? I ask - why British authorities don't explain it (absence of request to question the 'tourists'.
There is an explanation. It was given at the outset - it relates to the litvinenko enquiry



As for the photo presented by Bellingcat then it itself proves nothing. Another person could be depicted. The photo could be forged. And even if the 'tourists' are Russian secret agents then it itself prove nothing - it doesn't prove that they are poisoners.
Multiple photos and video footage, also with the seating plan ..... lots and lots of circumstantial evidence
When the story broke without the photos etc friend 118 seemed to believe that the existence of just one photo at the wedding would convince him that he was wrong and we were right all along, it was me who pointed out that it is just a connection among your agents

But it does add to all the links and all the matching version on our side of the case
It is highly likely that the Russian government conducted this attack in Salisbury

Russian authorities never commented and will never comment allegations made by private organizations like Bellingcat. Russian embassy, Russian FM, Russian government will comment only official statements made by HMG.
They comment on far more then official statements
How many versions coming from Russia have we had now?
 
Frankly speaking I have an impression that British authorities have nothing to investigate in the Skripal's case. They know everything - all important details and now keep silence because the truth would be politically damaging.
Or because they are following the legal process.

How come if something is published then it’s prejudicing the case, but if something is not published then it’s a conspiracy of silence ?

The Skripals alas know too much. So they are isolated from journalists, from public scrutiny. All these fairy tales - that they themselves prefer to hide - they are for 12yo scout-girls.
It is my private opinion.
The two GRU agents also know far too much
They are isolated from journalists, public scrutiny and the world
They are either dead, squirreled away hidden or giving lectures to the next generation

How about all these fairy tales ?
This is 8 months out of date, but I think I know who’s still winning with the number of different tales.....

978A7AD6-4FE8-4A19-A903-D6A6FC35AAFB.png
 
No
I have a life

I shall be responding to your points
You however have been avoiding discussion on the points I have been raising to you, so it’s a bit of a stretch to claim I’m totally ignoring you over a matter of hours
You invited me to have this discussion and it would be impolite to void you an opponent. Any discussion without opponent is fruitless. But for reasons that you outlined yourself, I'm unable to respond immediately each time. Please take it into account.
 
I have a logical explanation - the Skripals returned home and the Russian government are distracting with disinformation


Why are the authorities ‘keeping silent’?
(1) You tell me why the ‘authorities’ need to publish absolutely every little detail ?
(2) Like for example evidence which is to be presented in court and would be made available to the defence for their preparation prior to going to court etc
(1) Did the Skripals return home or not - it is not just a 'little detail' but a cornerstone of current official version. If they didn't return then the version would be ruined.
(2) Hardly any trial will happen anytime soon. So your argument is not actual. And anyway, the accused along with lawyers have right to full access to the case including all details.
I have another question in this context. Why no one British journalist hasn't asked this natural question (in this form)?
The authorities no doubt know did the Skripals return home or not. So did they return?
I repeat, no one British journalist have asked this natural question. But why?
British authorities made a lot of statements, also on behalf of ms.Skripal. But there are some strange holes in the narrative of British authorities. They
- don't confirm that the Skripals returned home
- photos and videos with the 'tourists' were released but there is no one photo or video with the Skripals.
- what is exact timeline? Where the Skripals had been that day? The authorities are well aware about it.
As previously raised with your friends and your self .... even on the very obscure likelihood that Russia wants to keep muddying the waters with, if the Skripals never returned it does not render the innocence of your team, it just enlarges your team
It’s a load of bollocks though
I'm just a private person and in the context of civilised, constructive discussion, please regard me this way. Please, don't refer to the position of Russian government, to the statement made in Russian mass media. I don't bear any responsibility for it. Also don't refer to my friends and 'friends'. I don't bear any responsibility for what they wrote here.
If the Skripals didn't return home then anyway they were unable to touch the door handle. So the version of poisoning through the door handle is not correct.
There is an explanation. It was given at the outset - it relates to the litvinenko enquiry
I meant official statement. Have British authorities officially explained it? That they don't ask Russian government permission to question the 'tourists'?
Multiple photos and video footage, also with the seating plan ..... lots and lots of circumstantial evidence
When the story broke without the photos etc friend 118 seemed to believe that the existence of just one photo at the wedding would convince him that he was wrong and we were right all along, it was me who pointed out that it is just a connection among your agents
This wedding party, its photos and videos prove nothing. It is not proved that the person depicted there is the same person who visited Salisbury. And even if he is then it doesn't prove that he is a poisoner.
But it does add to all the links and all the matching version on our side of the case
Version proposed by British authorities is not formulated clearly. It is full of holes and unexplained details. There is no clear timeline.
It is highly likely that the Russian government conducted this attack in Salisbury
At this point it is only an allegation. It is your version.
The investigation is still ongoing. So let's wait when it will be completed and the results will be published. But I fear it will not happen anytime soon.
How many versions coming from Russia have we had now?
Truth seeking process needs versions - as many as possible - to consider them and scrutinise the problem in the most comprehensive way.
I would like to note that the official version is incomplete, has holes and unexplained details.
 
(1) Did the Skripals return home or not - it is not just a 'little detail' but a cornerstone of current official version. If they didn't return then the version would be ruined.
They did return home, as per the link I provided that dispelled Russia’s disinformation from the outset, and also as per the BBC documentary (which majorly upset 118)




(2) Hardly any trial will happen anytime soon. So your argument is not actual.
The likelihood of a trial going ahead in any specific timeframe does not change things about what details need to be published
“Your argument is ’not actual’ either” .... or flawed even
Why should every detail be publicly released?
Curiosity is not a good enough reason
The GRU wanting to know what evidence is known to contradict any tales they may come up with is a reason
However that doesn’t normally put them off, for example ordering the two agents to appear on TV, confirming it is them in Salisburys CCTV footage - but making them blatantly lie about the deep snow drifts alongside the footage of them on damp pavements with a bit of slush on the kerb


And anyway, the accused along with lawyers have right to full access to the case including all details.
They will be provided with access to evidence, which I have said. They do of course need to participate with the legal process to do so
I have another question in this context. Why no one British journalist hasn't asked this natural question (in this form)?
1) because they know the answer and have dispelled Russia’s myth
2) they have presented the information that they did return home

Not very complicated ..... but you are just following your brief
The authorities no doubt know did the Skripals return home or not. So did they return?
They did
I repeat, no one British journalist have asked this natural question.
They did
Why do you keep pressing this year old disinformation ?
Following orders & your brief ?
British authorities made a lot of statements, also on behalf of ms.Skripal. But there are some strange holes in the narrative of British authorities. They
- don't confirm that the Skripals returned home
It’s been covered
- photos and videos with the 'tourists' were released but there is no one photo or video with the Skripals.
Untrue - there are many photos of the Skripals, we know who the Skripals are
The wider public did not know the suspects
The police were seeking information on the suspects, hence footage and pictures of them
At one stage while the Skripals were in a state of coma information was being asked about them. Hence pictures of them and Sergeis car. With quality pictures of a person you don’t need lesser quality CCTV stills
- what is exact timeline? Where the Skripals had been that day? The authorities are well aware about it.
Not very relevant though is it?
Relevant to the GRU perhaps, or perhaps not and it’s just distraction
I'm just a private person and in the context of civilised, constructive discussion, please regard me this way. Please, don't refer to the position of Russian government, to the statement made in Russian mass media. I don't bear any responsibility for it.
I’m not responsible for any statements made by our government either
Also don't refer to my friends and 'friends'.
Your rogue state has made this personal bringing a nerve agent to my home ..... pretty much literally
They have (unintentionally) but with a blatant disregard for the British public murdered a friend of mine. I’ll call your collective whatever I want
I don't bear any responsibility for what they wrote here.
I allege that you, 118, grey fox and other identities are at best useful idiots, but in my opinion are paid trolls on staff
If the Skripals didn't return home then anyway they were unable to touch the door handle. So the version of poisoning through the door handle is not correct.
But they did return home

However it is not cut and dried that they were poisoned by the doorhandle. It has been confirmed as the largest sample that has been collected

Is this a distraction exercise ?
Is it a matter of the GRU still trying to find out if their is footage of the pair applying the novichok to the door?
Is it that the GRU know something that we in the general public don’t ?
I meant official statement. Have British authorities officially explained it?
They have officially explained it


That they don't ask Russian government permission to question the 'tourists'?
Because the last time your government put in constant attempts to hinder the investigation, including poisoning our police
This wedding party, its photos and videos prove nothing. It is not proved that the person depicted there is the same person who visited Salisbury.
They show that the person who claims to have visited Salisbury was at the wedding
And even if he is then it doesn't prove that he is a poisoner.
The novichock trace in his hotel points toward it
Getting lost on his way to the big pointy cathedral points toward it
Novichock at the scenes and in the victims blood samples points towards it

Plenty of information that puts a reasonable chance of this being the case justifies further questioning and the potential of a successful trial


Version proposed by British authorities is not formulated clearly. It is full of holes and unexplained details. There is no clear timeline.
Many versions of the Russian state are gibberish
At this point it is only an allegation. It is your version.


The investigation is still ongoing. So let's wait when it will be completed and the results will be published. But I fear it will not happen anytime soon.
There’s a reason for that, the legal process gives the accused the right to reply. We’re waiting for them
Truth seeking process needs versions - as many as possible - to consider them and scrutinise the problem in the most comprehensive way.
Distraction tactics need as many versions as possible
An innocent party does not need to come up with all the versions they can think of
I would like to note that the official version is incomplete, has holes and unexplained details.


Lots of nice distraction
So you’re sticking to your pantomime line that “oh no it isn’t” him at the wedding
 
They did return home, as per the link I provided that dispelled Russia’s disinformation from the outset, and also as per the BBC documentary (which majorly upset 118
But even in the documentary there is no any reference to any official statement.
So technically it is only an allegation.
The likelihood of a trial going ahead in any specific timeframe does not change things about what details need to be published
“Your argument is ’not actual’ either” .... or flawed even
Why should every detail be publicly released?
It is not just one of many details - it is one of the most important details and the cornerstone of the official version.
Curiosity is not a good enough reason
The GRU wanting to know what evidence is known to contradict any tales they may come up with is a reason
However that doesn’t normally put them off, for example ordering the two agents to appear on TV, confirming it is them in Salisburys CCTV footage - but making them blatantly lie about the deep snow drifts alongside the footage of them on damp pavements with a bit of slush on the kerb
They will be provided with access to evidence, which I have said. They do of course need to participate with the legal process to do so
As I understand Russian authorities are ready to participate in the legal process but British side doesn't wish it.
1) because they know the answer and have dispelled Russia’s myth
2) they have presented the information that they did return home
It is a bit strange. British journalists interviewed Viktoria Skripal (the cousine of Yulia) while she hardly knows much about the case. But there was no one attempt to interview the Skripals or the 'tourists'.
Untrue - there are many photos of the Skripals, we know who the Skripals are
The wider public did not know the suspects.
I meant photos or videos made 4 March. Where is a lot of them in public domain for the 'tourists' and no one with the Skripals.

As I see our discussion continues in the form of exchange of opinions. Indeed for months there is no new official information related to the case. So we only have to guess, to suggest, to allege.
You commented my remarks and I tried to comment your ones. If not then ask me again.
Frankly speaking the case (from my point of view) is in a deadlock. Prospects of any trial are dim.

PS. As for the photos/videos from the wedding party then reportedly mr.Chepiga was 'found' and it is only an allegation. But note that British authorities never mentioned mssrs.Chepiga and Mishkin. They told only about mssrs.Petrov and Boshirov. The allegation that they are the same people remains only an allegation.
 
Last edited:

Slime

LE
The new KGB..........oops, the same KGB as always seems to have a very different way of spelling, and very different grammar to how that avatar typed a few months ago.

They don’t seem to ‘remember’ who they previously talked to or what they had previously said.

How very odd :)
 

TEEJ

Old-Salt
I meant photos or videos made 4 March. Where is a lot of them in public domain for the 'tourists' and no one with the Skripals.
You really haven't done any research before posting as "KGB_resident". Plainly obvious when a simple search in this very thread would prove you wrong.

Posted on 27th May, 2019


Video at following link.


Further proof that "KGB_resident" profile is used by more than one poster.

kgb resident.jpg



Obviously you didn't fully read the hand over/take over notes! Explain why "KGB_resident" posted a video of the Skripals from 4th March?

 
Last edited:
You really haven't done any research before posting as "KGB_resident". Plainly obvious when a simple search in this very thread would prove you wrong.

Posted on 27th May, 2019


Video at following link.


Further proof that "KGB_resident" profile is used by more than one poster.

View attachment 424677


Obviously you didn't fully read the hand over/take over notes! Explain why "KGB_resident" posted a video of the Skripals from 4th March?

I'm well aware about the video in question. At time it was claimed that namely the Skripals are seen here. So using available information I made the conclusion that you noted.
However now there are doubts that they are the Skripals. It is impossible to recognise them on the video and the Police don't claim that the pair on the video are the Skripals.
As a result to this moment there is no even one photo or video of the Skripals made 4 March in public domain.
Writing about it I didn't mean initial allegations but just current situation.
 
Sounds like the police are doing their job to me.

As we continually point out to your colleague and Padawan, 118118, after an appeal for witnesses and an initial release of information which may or may not be pertinent to the case, there should be a lockdown of information to the general public in the interests of:

1] A fair trial. I will not say the reasons for this but ask your son, the ex copper/copper. This is assuming your state knows the context of a fair trial. I suspect they do for acquisitive offences at the low end of criminality, eg taking a car or some such.

2] Keeping the prosecution case under wraps to prevent the formation of alibis by a state actor. Alibis are easy to make. Sometimes difficult to disprove, especially when supported by witnesses under duress. Of course, and being Britain, all details down to radio numbers and call signs would be disclosed to the defence after questioning and formal charging. Not before.

3] Holding key facts for presentation at interview which will prove the case, prior to the formation of an alibi.

Now, all this is public domain and known by a half decent Detective Constable. It is known by your masters unless they are continually pissed up on Vodka.

As a consequence, you are applying a false morality implying that we are somehow wrong in not disclosing the whereabouts of the Skripals, where video evidence is etc.

Before I retired from the police ( not from work), video evidence was just being accepted at court. The regular comments from scrotes were that it proves nothing/it's not me/it's a fit up etc, etc ad nauseam. Unfortunately, they were wrong because the half decent copper made sure proof was available LEGALLY to pin the case. You will have some of the best spooks and detectives working on this job Sergei. Think on.

Now back to my point, the constant denial of video footage reads as the bleatings of a scrote to me. I expect better from operatives with an obviously high level of intelligence.

I still think the Skripals are better with us than with your "crooks and thieves."

You'll get nowt 'ere.
 
But even in the documentary there is no any reference to any official statement.
So technically it is only an allegation.
It’s all an allegation
That’s the point of innocent until proven guilty and the legal process
It is not just one of many details - it is one of the most important details and the cornerstone of the official version.
no it is not the cornerstone of the case
As I understand Russian authorities are ready to participate in the legal process but British side doesn't wish it.
Something to do with us alleging that the Russian state did it, and past experience

It’s all explained in the original allegation

It is a bit strange. British journalists interviewed Viktoria Skripal (the cousine of Yulia) while she hardly knows much about the case. But there was no one attempt to interview the Skripals or the 'tourists'.
And how do you know there was no attempt to interview the others ?

What was it that Yulia said in her tv statement ???
I meant photos or videos made 4 March. Where is a lot of them in public domain for the 'tourists' and no one with the Skripals.
That would be the difference between suspects and victims
As I see our discussion continues in the form of exchange of opinions. Indeed for months there is no new official information related to the case. So we only have to guess, to suggest, to allege.
You commented my remarks and I tried to comment your ones. If not then ask me again.
Frankly speaking the case (from my point of view) is in a deadlock. Prospects of any trial are dim.

PS. As for the photos/videos from the wedding party then reportedly mr.Chepiga was 'found' and it is only an allegation. But note that British authorities never mentioned mssrs.Chepiga and Mishkin. They told only about mssrs.Petrov and Boshirov. The allegation that they are the same people remains only an allegation.
 
But even in the documentary there is no any reference to any official statement.
So technically it is only an allegation.

It is not just one of many details - it is one of the most important details and the cornerstone of the official version.

As I understand Russian authorities are ready to participate in the legal process but British side doesn't wish it.

It is a bit strange. British journalists interviewed Viktoria Skripal (the cousine of Yulia) while she hardly knows much about the case. But there was no one attempt to interview the Skripals or the 'tourists'.

I meant photos or videos made 4 March. Where is a lot of them in public domain for the 'tourists' and no one with the Skripals.

As I see our discussion continues in the form of exchange of opinions. Indeed for months there is no new official information related to the case. So we only have to guess, to suggest, to allege.
You commented my remarks and I tried to comment your ones. If not then ask me again.
Frankly speaking the case (from my point of view) is in a deadlock. Prospects of any trial are dim.

PS. As for the photos/videos from the wedding party then reportedly mr.Chepiga was 'found' and it is only an allegation. But note that British authorities never mentioned mssrs.Chepiga and Mishkin. They told only about mssrs.Petrov and Boshirov. The allegation that they are the same people remains only an allegation.
You do try. I'll give you that.
 

Latest Threads

Top