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

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.
I have already stated on the many threads - eye witnesses place Sergei and Yulia on the bench
Due to being here in Salisbury I also have personal testimony from an eye witness placing Sergei and Yulia having arrived at the hospital on the day
 

Slime

LE
He's just fishing for information. It is what he is paid to do.
They are just fishing, it’s what they are paid to do, plus they are here to act like complete arse-holes

They manage one of their tasks quite well.
 

Slime

LE
So, for any trolls like the KGB collective looking in, there is more than enough evidence of what the Skripals did on the day they were poisoned, there is also plenty of witness testimony even including from the Skripals themselves.

They know far more about this than any retarded Russian troll fishing for evidence they aren’t entitled to see, or the moronic shitposter Who is also well outside the need to know.

As long as the trolls get their direct replies or quotes they will stay here asking idiotic questions.
 

Slime

LE
I suppose we really need to bombard the trolls to find out who exactly they want to see, or think they will see in CCTV of the day of the poisoning.

I don’t think they have any interest in seeing the Skripals, or any of the various first responders.

Just as the trolls were desperate to see footage of the first two named GRU agents before video and stills of the pair were shown they may now be worried if another member of their homes team’ appears on video.
 
A cynic might say that they want to know if other operatives have been filmed in case the laws of chaos determine that those operatives, in their right and proper turn, fall out of ground floor windows with five rounds of self inflicted to the amygdala.

Such may be the consequences of the troll's enquiries.

The fact that they do not give a damn for such consequences is an indicator of why I post on this thread.
 
Sounds like the police are doing their job to me.
Police (as a rule) know their job and know how to do it. The politicians by contrast are frequently absolutely unaware how to do their job.
As we continually point out to your colleague and Padawan, 118118...
I don't bear any responsibility for anything written by anybody on ARRSE pages. And you don't bear any responsibility for anything sounded by mr.Johnson, mrs.May or any member of HMG acting or former. Btw, do you bear any responsibility for claims made by mr.Blair?
Police unlike politicians would not on initial stage claim that 'highly likely' they know who is responsible for the crime.
... 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:
But it really hasn't happened. The lockdown was not absolute or/and unconditional.
For example a lot of information was released about mssrs. Petrov and Boshirov but with holes (I wrote about it).
Official version supported by Police was released on initial stages but again with holes.
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.
How fair trial is possible in this case with huge political component after loud claims made my former and acting prime ministers? Unlikely any trial will happen but if it will happen it would not be fair for reasons I have mentioned.
2] Keeping the prosecution case under wraps to prevent the formation of alibis by a state actor. Alibis are easy to make.
On this point I don't agree with you. It is not so easy thing to make an alibi. By contrast it is quite easy to hide an existing alibi.
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.
In theory correct. But theory and real life are different matters. Suppose that Police make a statement about the Skripals whereabout - that 4 March they returned home. How it can be used by anybody?
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.
Let me say myself what I imply or not imply. It is British soil and in your country you are free to use own laws, customs, methods of investigation. So right or wrong terms are not applicable (at least by me).
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.
What video do you mean? The wedding party? It proves nothing. At best it proves that something who looks similar to mr.Boshirov exists. Anyway, British authorities haven't made any official statement about the video. So there is nothing to discuss.
I still think the Skripals are better with us than with your "crooks and thieves."
Maybe, but I will believe it only after their respective claim made freely, directly in presence of journalists.
 
Last edited:

Slime

LE
Isn’t it refreshing to see KGB telling us how his argument works.

A new poster to this thread would surely think KGB was a new poster introducing them self to others here.

Quite why a poster like KGB who had set out his argument one and a half years ago, and who has been conversing with other posters here for one and a half years needs to set out his argument one and a half years after he first did it is a mystery...........oh hang on, no it’s not ;)
 
I don't bear any responsibility for anything written by anybody on ARRSE pages. And you don't bear any responsibility for anything sounded by mr.Johnson, mrs.May or any member of HMG acting or former. Btw, do you bear any responsibility for claims made by mr.Blair?
Police unlike politicians would not on initial stage claim that 'highly likely' they know who is responsible for the crime.
1] In a democracy, one bears responsibility for the actions of one's representatives as they bear responsibility for yours. Such is the nature of human collectives whether we like it or not.. Blair is irrelevant to this discussion . However, I do bear responsibility because I was one of those who was silent.

2] Police would recommend suspect(s) and would liaise with legal staff to determine the likelihood of a guilty verdict. Such liaisons would be passed on and a politician would present those ideas as "highly likely."

But it really hasn't happened. The lockdown was not absolute or/and unconditional.
Please re read my response or get your son to translate my meaning. Pertinence to the case etc.

As for alibi's , please tell me how many offenders you have interviewed as an teacher and electrical engineer. I may have spoke to one or two more. I think. We will have to disagree about alibis. Anyone who thinks like a fox can jack one up in about three minutes.

In theory correct. But theory and real life are different matters. Suppose that Police make a statement about the Skripals whereabout that 4 March they returned home. How it can be used by anybody?
It can be used. It is obvious that you have no knowledge of the police modus operandi. As you say, in real life , it is different. It saddens me that you are trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs here. Saddens me in the way. i have just giggled and a little bit of fart just came out.

So right or wrong terms are not applicable.
It is our country and disposal is by our rules and customs according to our laws. You are perfectly correct. Where you err is when you state right and wrong terms are not applicable.

You are implicitly stating that we should disclose evidence. Why ? It has been explained to you. In your post truth world, you are attempting to equate the outrage of Salisbury with the failure to disclose video evidence. Your nation by virtue of their operatives and their seniors has questions to answer but refuses. Simple.

So there is nothing to discuss.
You really need to get an ex copper on this. Like I mean a real copper and not one of your state enabled goons. I am sure that there will be one looking after a small town somewhere in the Urals. He'd probably report sick though.

Maybe, but I will belie ve it only after their respective claim made freely, directly in presence of journalists.

It may or may not happen. You have made your bed my friend. As you fish for details, remember that the fate of real people depends on your actions.
 
oh hang on, no it’s not ;)
Nope. It is self evident. Where on Earth is that troll banner?

Possibly part of the conditions for gaining a troll award is that you have to threaten immolation ( YarS) or alternatively splurge twenty year out of date military type slang everywhere (118118).

At least this keeps me off the Brexit thread. Thanks baby Jesus.
 
....
Police unlike politicians would not on initial stage claim that 'highly likely' they know who is responsible for the crime.
....
It’s covered by others, that the politicians voiced the situation based on information gathered by the police
Not at the initial stage though.......

Wasn’t the information at the initial stage based on a release/releases based on information the police and other emergency services ? Which was not about novichock or the Russians????

On first hearing I could accept that there could be a junkie related drugs incident in the general area where drugs users and alcoholics be around, but things began to seem a bit odd - not necessarily on the bench at the Maltings, the junkies are a bit less public about their drug taking. An elderly man and younger woman .... not sounding right ..... more and more information led in another direction ...... and resulted in the highly likelihood of a Russian assassination attempt, and then additional evidence, validated by real scientists, and also independent international sources, also presented under the testing circumstances of a court of law

Less of these elements are allegations, more and more are established facts

At a later stage, where do we think the supporting information came for the issue of arrest warrants?
 
.... and how about three circumstantial matter of very unreliable ‘alibis’ from suspects

Blatant lies about town centre snow drifts, and walking together down single person airport lanes ..... it’s almost as if they aren’t allowed to give any truth at all, and are fed a script
 
1] In a democracy, one bears responsibility for the actions of one's representatives as they bear responsibility for yours. Such is the nature of human collectives whether we like it or not.. Blair is irrelevant to this discussion . However, I do bear responsibility because I was one of those who was silent.
The point about mr.Blair and other British politicians is taken while I don't agree with it. But you mentioned an essential condition - in a democracy. Russia is under power of the Big Money, under power of Crooks and Thieves who using different tricks elect themselves and their servants to parliament, to local councils. So your argument is not applicable to your obedient servant at least in the form that you expressed it.
And tell me, do you bear responsibility for each article in the Mail? For actions of ISIL members with British passports? I strongly doubt. As a private person I don't bear responsibility for anything that Russian mass media present (especially Putin's agitprop outlets). I don't bear any responsibility for anything written here by any forumist here (Russian or not Russian).
2] Police would recommend suspect(s) and would liaise with legal staff to determine the likelihood of a guilty verdict. Such liaisons would be passed on and a politician would present those ideas as "highly likely."
In theory experts supply politicians with data and politicians make claims on the base of this information. But at time mr.Johnson went too far in this direction and chief Porton Down expert had to correct him. Btw, as I'm aware no one serious British scientist said that imaginary scheme of poisoning (through the door handle) proposed by British authorities is possible.
As for alibi's , please tell me how many offenders you have interviewed as an teacher and electrical engineer. I may have spoke to one or two more. I think. We will have to disagree about alibis. Anyone who thinks like a fox can jack one up in about three minutes.
Well, we have agree to disagree on alibis.
It can be used. It is obvious that you have no knowledge of the police modus operandi. As you say, in real life , it is different. It saddens me that you are trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs here. Saddens me in the way. i have just giggled and a little bit of fart just came out.
In this case with huge political component police modus operandi is not that important than politicians modus operandi. The guilty side was not established but appointed. In fact the Police have to prove only one version and likely missed opportunities to establish truth.
It is our country and disposal is by our rules and customs according to our laws. You are perfectly correct. Where you err is when you state right and wrong terms are not applicable.
For me the terms are not applicable. But you are free to use them. For example, do you think that Police, politicians haven't made any mistakes in this case.
You are implicitly stating that we should disclose evidence.
No, I meant that if British authorities accuse Russian one in something criminal then at least the version of events should be plausible, voided any holes. I don't speak about evidence but about the version itself.
 
In this case with huge political component police modus operandi is not that important than politicians modus operandi. The guilty side was not established but appointed. In fact the Police have to prove only one version and likely missed opportunities to establish truth.
In one breath you don’t want to be tarred with the same brush as your ‘crooks and thieves’, in the next you accuse the Brit political system and plod which has independent oversight by the CPS, being run the same way as your ‘crooks and thieves’.

Previous holders of your account have been advised that the U.K. is different. Many of us who have experience of criminal investigations and the CPS know this and have explained it.
 
@KGB_resident

So you will accept we are responsible for our own actions and those consequent from them. If your "crooks and thieves" gain knowledge from our discussions which leads to murder then you or I would bear a portion of responsibility. You as a facilitator, I as a fool.

I will not labour this point. We know

The point about Mr. Blair and other British politicians is taken while I don't agree with it. But you mentioned an essential condition - in a democracy. Russia is under power of the Big Money, under power of Crooks and Thieves who using different tricks elect themselves and their servants to parliament, to local councils. So your argument is not applicable to your obedient servant at least in the form that you expressed it.
Seems you are saying Russia is not a democracy.

2] No British scientist has said the contrary either. Your scientists have already worked out whether this is possible. I know the answer. As a high school teacher, you should too. It is school boy chemistry.

As for alibis, I have already stated we will have to disagree. I will stick with my meagre experience and you stick with your wide and in depth lnowledge.

Much of your prose appears to be widely off the mark. The suspicion was not appointed by some sort of state enabled confirmation bias. It seems otiose to point out that initial suppositions were toward opiate intoxication until further work was done to identify organo phosphates. Otiose but necessary. British police are not Russian police.

Please write this out one hundred times..

As for the rest of your comments, all would be solved if the goons appeared for trial.

If the evidence you seek shows up in video, other people might die. Consider that. Thought I would say it again.
 
No British scientist has said the contrary either. Your scientists have already worked out whether this is possible. I know the answer. As a high school teacher, you should too. It is school boy chemistry.
Previously one scientists tried to say the truth about Iraqi chemical weapons...
I believe that other British scientists in this context prefer
1. Do not support the official version of poisoning - not to look silly.
2. Don't comment this case from scientific point of view - to remain alive.
The poisoning through the door handle look as very doubtful version for many reasons (I wrote about it).
...if the goons appeared for trial.
Unlikely it will happen.
Btw, do you think that general public in Russia regards arguments about guilt of Russia as sufficient?

The 'tourists' to obtain British visa had to inform British consulate about they addresses of registration and their (at least formal) job places. Or they would not get the visas. It is impossible to get Shengen or British visa without information about place where do you live and about your job place.
At certain moment the Police began to suspect that the 'tourists' could be connected to the poisoning. So it would be logical to check the addresses and the job places. No doubt it had been done long ago. You may tell that British police have own methods but it is too obvious thing not to do it.
And what is the result of verification? Is it secret? Really? But for what reason?
Arguments of the British side would be very strong if it would be established that mssrs. Petrov and Boshirov never lived at their formal addresses or/and never worked in firm(s) that they pointed as their job places.

Everybody has right to be an idiot or pretend to be an idiot but others reserve their right not to be treated as idiots. Fairy tales told by British authorities are for 12yo girl-scouts.
 
Previously one scientists tried to say the truth about Iraqi chemical weapons...
I believe that other British scientists in this context prefer
1. Do not support the official version of poisoning - not to look silly.
2. Don't comment this case from scientific point of view - to remain alive.
The poisoning through the door handle look as very doubtful version for many reasons (I wrote about it).
Ah. You're back.

Please accept what I said about school boy chemistry. Or don't. Your choice.
1. Unless asked, they would not be concerned. You have an obsession with people feeling that they would look silly. As far as I can see, the scientists at Porton Down have supported the official version. And no, I am not going to hypothesise outside the official version. Words have consequences. Please advise me, how would they look silly or are you just kiting another idea for responses?
2. I thought you were back Mr rats in cellars. We are not your country. We tend not to kill people. A strait forward character assassination is usually good enough. Your avatar has been here long enough to learn this, surely . Prove to me that Kelly was assassinated, ideally without reference to conspiracy sites.


The rest is the usual mixture of fishing and puerile ramblings and is not worthy of response. If you wish to be treated as an adult then it is you who should not act like a "12 yo old girl-scouts-sic."

You should start by realising that we are not you.
 

TEEJ

Old-Salt
The 'tourists' to obtain British visa had to inform British consulate about they addresses of registration and their (at least formal) job places. Or they would not get the visas. It is impossible to get Shengen or British visa without information about place where do you live and about your job place.
At certain moment the Police began to suspect that the 'tourists' could be connected to the poisoning. So it would be logical to check the addresses and the job places. No doubt it had been done long ago. You may tell that British police have own methods but it is too obvious thing not to do it.
And what is the result of verification? Is it secret? Really? But for what reason?
Arguments of the British side would be very strong if it would be established that mssrs. Petrov and Boshirov never lived at their formal addresses or/and never worked in firm(s) that they pointed as their job places.

Everybody has right to be an idiot or pretend to be an idiot but others reserve their right not to be treated as idiots. Fairy tales told by British authorities are for 12yo girl-scouts.
You fail to grasp that the visas obtained were likely via hacking of the UK visa system.


Also consider that these two "sport nutritionists" claimed to have clients and customers in the west, but yet none of these have identified themselves. Think about the money that these clients and customers could have made from the western press/international press with this major breaking news story. Nobody came forward simply because there was no western client base or customers. Nobody coming forward even with a business card in their names - nada - nothing. The claimed to have made business trips to Switzerland. They couldn't even verify their own business or company and not a single client or customer has come forward from Western Europe. Let that sink in for a bit. Their faces and names splashed all over with huge media attention and yet not one Western supplier or contact has come forward to verify their business dealings. Again think about the financial gain from the media in someone going to the media?

simonyan.jpg


petrovmishkin.JPG
 
As far as I can see, the scientists at Porton Down have supported the official version.
Would you be so kind to point to the source? Or you just believe it?
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top