[Nonsense]

The Independent is Russian owned paper

Lebedev buys Independent newspapers
Russian billionaire finalises months of negotiations by buying papers for £1 from Independent News & Media

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/ ... newspapers

The 'TORY' Party has been(since 2010)the recipient of £10's MILLIONS from RUSSIAN donors.

It makes one think that CORBYN has missed a 'trick' here, but it's also an opportunity to ignite old issues on 'dirty' money in Westminster politics.

In the 1960's, the 'TORIES' had a system called, "Cash for questions" in Westminster.

Under BLAIR, it was, 'Cash' & NO questions asked',(otherwise, he would threaten legal retaliation).
It's time that CORBYN started to ask questions, if he wants to be known as Mr 'CLEAN'

[noir]

^I was referring to the German and Russian tactic to buy papers for their credibility. They impose their propaganda on these papers and then quote from it as if it's coming from neutral source. Both Nazis and Communists are genious in this tactic.

[Nonsense]

^I was reffering to the German and Russian tactic to buy papers for their credibility. They impose their propaganda on these papers and than quote from it as if it's coming from natural source. Both Nazis and Communists are genious in this tactic.

So too with all newspaper proprietors in this country, whether Fleet Street, Wapping, or online publishers.

[noir]

But this tactic is particularly evil.

[Nonsense]

But this tactic is particularly evil.

I agree, they are all bloody 'evil', I hate the lot of them, including the BBC, they distort everything in order to control the agenda which they believe is theirs to own.

Brainwashing is what it's about, the self-appointed 'elite' of the political sect are absolutely corrupt, they are bought & paid for by business, whether at Westminster or in every Town Hall.
The Tories will not be satisfied until democracy is dead in this country, they want to destroy it so they control everything through business.

The public of this or any other 'democracy' are not engaged in decisions affecting them, either locally, or nationally, ONLY by referendum or elections do they exercise 'democratic' action & that is too feeble to describe it as 'democracy'.

[noir]

I cancelled my paper subscription (which I had since age 19) after the "ex" Nazi family bought it.

[noir]

Not immediately. It was part of my life for many years, a daily routine, but my family prussered me. Did it reluctently, and now I'm thanking them.

[Nonsense]

I cancelled my paper subscription (which I had since age 19) after the "ex" Nazi family bought it.

I stopped buying them 50 years ago, in order to deprive them the oxygen of life needed to function, namely money.

It's truly liberating to give things up, more so when it's depriving media barons a source of income.

[noir]

You are wiser, you did it before the internet era. Kudos

[Nonsense]

You are wiser, you did it before the internet era. Kudos

Thanks for that, I have been involved with computers since 1980,I bought them for my children & custom built many for myself.

The early days were tremendous for online users, it was virtually like the wild west, but there were some brilliant minds around then.

Forums are so different now by comparison, this one is one of the better sites around with very little trolling or flaming going on & members are more engaged in the issues raised.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Any country or person can level accusations against another, PROVING such things is DIFFICULT & NOTHING HAS YET BEEN PROVEN.
RUSSIA requested mutual cooperation(as per Convention obligations)from the U.K, to provide 'evidence' so that they can assist the U.K in their 'investigations', they have been refused such request, there is now a 'prima facie' case for prosecuting
the U.K, should RUSSIA feel necessary to do so.

NOT 'cooperating' with a signatory country, IS outside of ALL signatories LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.

This is, frankly, 'nonsense'. Russia1 did not request "mutual cooperation". They were asked to cooperate, and they refused. The convention does not say samples have to be sent to those suspected or accused - I had already looked, and found nothing like that, and what you quoted doesn't say it.

[Atlantis]

This is, frankly, 'nonsense'. Russia1 did not request "mutual cooperation". They were asked to cooperate, and they refused. The convention does not say samples have to be sent to those suspected or accused - I had already looked, and found nothing like that, and what you quoted doesn't say it.

Russia submitted a written request to the OPCW for Britain to submit a sample of the toxin about a week ago, which I posted in this or the parallel thread. Johnson first brushed it off, but now says that Britain will submit a sample. The UK probably wouldn't have gotten any support from its allies otherwise. The OPCW will also have to take a sample directly from the site and from the Skripals, just to make sure there's no cheating.

The Novichoks were not included in the list of banned chemicals because nobody could prove they existed. If Britain does have this toxin, than it has to submit a sample to the OPCW.

The Tories are pissing their pants, just like in the case of the secrete Brexit impact studies, which first existed, then didn't exist, and finally turned out to be an amalgam of stuff a 5-year old could have copy/pasted from the net.

In the case of the report on the Iraq invasion, successive governments spent more years on editing it than it took to compile.


EDIT: I managed to find the statement made on March 13th by Ambassador Alexander Shulgin to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at the Hague:

Statement by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW, Ambassador Alexander Shulgin, at the 87th session of the OPCW Exwecutive Council on the chemical incident in Salisbury, The Hague, March 13, 2018

Mr Chairperson,

In connection with the vicious attacks launched by British officials in London, as well as the statement by the head of the British delegation to the OPCW with regard to Russia concerning the suspicious story of two persons poisoned with a toxic agent in Salisbury, we would like to state the following.

The British authorities’ unfounded accusations of Russia’s alleged involvement in using poisonous agents on their territory are absolutely unacceptable. Our British colleagues should recall that Russia and the United Kingdom are members of the OPCW which is one of the most successful and effective disarmament and non-proliferation mechanisms. We call upon them to abandon the language of ultimatums and threats and return to the legal framework of the chemical convention, which makes it possible to resolve this kind of situation.

If London does have serious reasons to suspect Russia of violating the CWC – and the statement read by distinguished Ambassador Peter Wilson indicates directly that this is so – we suggest that Britain immediately avail itself of the procedures provided for by paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the CWC. They make it possible, on a bilateral basis, to officially contact us for clarifications regarding any issues that raise doubts or concerns.

We would also like to emphasise that such clarifications under the Convention are provided to the requesting member state as soon as possible, but in any case no later than 10 days following receipt of the request. As such, the ultimatum’s demand that information be provided immediately, by the end of today, is absolutely unacceptable.

Our British colleagues should save their propaganda fervour and slogans for their unenlightened domestic audience, where perhaps they will have some effect. Here, within the walls of a specialised international organisation, such as the OPCW, one must use facts and nothing but the facts. Stop fomenting hysteria, go ahead and officially formalise your request to begin consultations with us in order to clarify the situation.

A fair warning, we will require material evidence of the alleged Russian trace in this high-profile case. Britain’s allegations that they have everything, and their world-famous scientists have irrefutable data, but they will not give us anything, will not be taken into account. For us, this will mean that London has nothing substantial to show, and all its loud accusations are nothing but fiction and another instance of the dirty information war being waged on Russia.

Sooner or later, they will have to be held accountable for their lies.

In addition, in this particular case, it would be legitimate for the British side to seek assistance from the OPCW Technical Secretariat in conducting an independent laboratory analysis of the available samples that allegedly show traces of nerve agents in Salisbury.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

We ask you to circulate this statement as an official document of the 87th session of the OPCW’s Executive Council and post it on the Organisation’s external server.

[Nonsense]

This is, frankly, 'nonsense'. Russia1 did not request "mutual cooperation". They were asked to cooperate, and they refused. The convention does not say samples have to be sent to those suspected or accused - I had already looked, and found nothing like that, and what you quoted doesn't say it.

There's no point in twisting the intention of the legal obligations of the Convention.

As here, "an item of evidence". See below.

"Measures to improve, where necessary, the framework & the arrangements necessary for appropriate legal cooperation
between Member States( for example, to facilitate extradition or other mutual legal assistance in the investigation or prosecution of crimes involving chemical weapons when a suspect, an item of evidence , or a witness, are at a location under the jurisdiction of a Member State)".


Prosthetic Conscience-
"I had already looked, and found nothing like that, and what you quoted doesn't say it".

Nonsense-

As you state, "and what you quoted doesn't say it".

So, what I 'QUOTED' wasn't there? I guess you haven't read it then, by that, I don't mean the words you use, or your interpretation of the said paragraph above in it's entirety.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

So, Atlantis posts the statement from Russia, which says "we have 10 days to comply". So they also acknowledge which way round things are - the UK is saying "Russia needs to comply". Russia's response is "we'll ignore this unless you send us samples" (and they do not say "the treaty says you must send us samples"; they're just putting forward their conditions for cooperating). Which is not "the law says you must send us samples, and you are breaking international law, or the treaty". So, Atlantis and Nonsense, this "the UK is breaking international law" stuff still looks like bullshit.

[Atlantis]

According to the Russians, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the UK and Sweden are most likely to have produced Novichoks because they conducted research on the substances from the late 1990s.

They also said they would close the British Council and the British Consulate in St Petersburg in addition to expelling 23 British diplomats.

Closing the British Council and the Consulate could be more damaging than expelling some diplomats. Looks like they take a heavy handed approach.

Russia spy poisoning: Czechs angrily reject Russia claims

[Decky]

I think Gavin Williamson is really a tough guy, may be next he will show them pesky Russians middle finger, literally, that will show them.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/16/russia-sa ... h-7391670/

Moscow has launched an attack on defence secretary Gavin Williamson saying he speaks like a ‘market wench’ and suffers ‘intellectual impotency’.

The comments come after the newly-appointed minister told Russia to ‘go away and shut up’ in a bizarre and immature press appearance yesterday.

Russian defence ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov hit back describing Williamson as a ‘disgrace’ and acting like he was still going through puberty. He said: ‘The market wench talk that British defence secretary Gavin Williamson resorted to reflects his extreme intellectual impotency. ‘It proves the deficiency of London’s accusations thrown at Russia in the past but also the inadequacy of the accusers.’

He added that Russia had ‘long become immune to London accusing us of all sins.’ He continued: ‘As for the boorish remarks by the British defence secretary on Russia, they seem to be the only thing that Her Majesty’s armed forces have in ample supply’.

Britain long ago turned into ‘a comfortable nest not only for defectors from the whole world – but also for numerous offices in charge of making fake sensations’. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin ally Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the upper house’s International Relations committee, claimed a hostile Britain was preparing for war against Russia. Britain is making ‘wholesale accusations against Russia’ before the inquiry into the Skripal poisoning is complete and ‘without proof’. ‘Massive aggression has been organised against Russia with the use of tools of informational, political and economic force,’ he complained.

‘And with the preparation of public opinion for the possibility of the use of military force.’ He said: ‘Nobody is keen to submit any facts, samples and other evidence to Russia. ‘Once again, a traditional scheme is used: ‘we have made all decision here with us, we won’t give any evidence, and Russia must prove it is not guilty.’ He claimed that the ‘catastrophe’ of the Soviet breakup had led to ‘some arsenals of mass destruction weapons’ going missing. ‘Nowadays they can ‘float’ in unexpected places,’ he said. This is ‘very awkward for the West’ which wanted rid of the USSR since it already decided that Russia was ‘the one to blame’. Russian senator Franz Klintsevich accused Williamson of being ‘non-professional’ and a ‘disgrace’ to Britain. ‘The expressions chosen by Gavin Williamson are unprecedented for a minister of a major country,’ he said. ‘It is a proof of his total non-professionalism. It is a disgrace for Great Britain. ‘It is impossible to imagine that something like this would have been said in public of the Russian defence minister.’ Williamson ‘can’t get rid of old habits acquired in puberty when he partied with his young mates and sorted things out with them with the help of abusive words’. Former head of the GRU military espionage agency Fyodor Ladygin was not guilty of using a nerve agent on ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. Russian intelligence ‘has never, I repeat, never resorted to such heinous nonsense, as the UK tries to attribute to it,’ he said. Skripal was pardoned and was of no interest to the authorities. ‘For us the fate of traitors is indifferent. For an intelligence officer, traitors die immediately – they absolutely stop existing in the memory, they are washed out of it,’ he said. Theresa May wants a ‘short victorious war’ to unite a Britain divided over Brexit and an unstable Tory party, claimed Elena Ananyeva, Head of the Centre for British Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Europe. The poisoning scandal is being used to blacken Russia and unite Britons, she said. May needs a ‘short victorious war and a threat posed to the country from a ‘monster.’, she said. ‘The entire nation should be united in a single effort and there should be a monolithic unity of the Conservative Party and people.’ Williamson said: ‘It is absolutely atrocious and outrageous what Russia did in Salisbury. We have responded to that. Frankly Russia should go away and should shut up. ‘But if they do respond to the action we have taken, we are considering everything and we will look at our options but it would be wrong to pre-judge their response.’

The battle between titans continues.

[Atlantis]

So, Atlantis posts the statement from Russia, which says "we have 10 days to comply". So they also acknowledge which way round things are - the UK is saying "Russia needs to comply". Russia's response is "we'll ignore this unless you send us samples" (and they do not say "the treaty says you must send us samples"; they're just putting forward their conditions for cooperating). Which is not "the law says you must send us samples, and you are breaking international law, or the treaty". So, Atlantis and Nonsense, this "the UK is breaking international law" stuff still looks like bullshit.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

If the Brits have Novichoks, then they must supply a sample.

If the Russians don't have Novichoks, then they can't supply a sample.

So, where is the problem? The Brits have to prove their accusations.

The Russians cannot prove that something does not exist. Since there is no evidence, the Russians cannot disprove evidence that does not exist.

[Igor Antunov]

When I learned that the Soviet chap who created this toxin became a US citizen years ago, and that the CIA has access to this technology; I knew this was very fake news.

[Nonsense]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

If the Brits have Novichoks, then they must supply a sample.

If the Russians don't have Novichoks, then they can't supply a sample.

So, where is the problem? The Brits have to prove their accusations.

The Russians cannot prove that something does not exist. Since there is no evidence, the Russians cannot disprove evidence that does not exist.

Atlantis-
So, where is the problem? The Brits have to prove their accusations.

Nonsense-

Precisely, it's a fundamental tenet of English Law, that an accused is innocent until PROVEN 'guilty'.

Secondly, as you say, Russia doesn't have any obligation to prove it is 'innocent'

The process of proving & onus on proving 'guilt' is based upon 'evidence' that prosecutors must deploy to a court when seeking to convict.

In this case, this country is NOT supplying 'evidence' to the accused, which is another feature of our system, for which, denying it to the accused(Russia's government)is an admission that the 'evidence' is inconsequential in proving the prosecutions case.

In this case, it is insufficient to produce a 'sample' of a nerve agent in court, in the absence of placing it into the context of which is was 'found' or 'manufactured in relation to the alleged 'crime', that, particularly when the scene of crime has been contaminated by disturbance or other causes, for which forensics has been fatally compromised.

This government has been allowing itself, as well as the media to conduct a 'mock' trial in the media & parliament.

The Speaker of the House of Commons has brought himself, the 'House' & the law into public contempt.

Those acts have effectively denied the 'accused', whether an individual, or the Russian government, the possibility of receiving a fair trial in any court of law.

I believe that is why Jeremy CORBYN was opposed to what was happening.

[Papokarlo]

The UK ultimatum in the case of poisoning Sergei Skripal and his daughter Julia expired: Moscow did not respond to it. The European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations, the NATO spoke out against Russia, accused of the chemical warfare in Britain.

On Monday, March 12, Theresa May, appearing before the Parliament, said that it was "highly likely" Russia was responsible for the Salisbury attack. According to her, Skripal was poisoned with nerve agent called "Novichok". May concluded that if Moscow is not responsible for the incident, the poison got into the hands of others, and summoned Russia to provide an explanation. In case Moscow ignores London's demands, May has promised to take countermeasures and to regard the poisoning of Skripal as "the illegal use of force by the Russian state against Britain."

At the same time, the US Congress Senate is trying to push the president to consider the issue of imposing new sanctions on Russia. Senator Robert Menendez says that the poisoning of Skripal is the reason for such a step. In addition, according to the lawmaker, President Donald Trump should consider the issue of including Russia in the list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

Currently the situation in the US seems to be extremely embarrasing, especially concerning Tillerson's resignation. Now it appears that Tillerson's support in the "Skripal case" of Theresa May has been the last straw that has exhausted Trump's patience. All these events occur when the Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives has decided to find Trump's team innocent.

The Times reported that London could conduct a massive cyber attack against Russia's government computer networks or sites connected with the "troll factory". Measures against RT, a boycott of the World Cup and sanctions against Russian businessmen are also being considered.

At a time when the global information hysteria about the poisoning of Skripal, which is developing by Great Britain, everyone should think about why do they provoke the most powerful country in nuclear weapons. Doubtful claims to the Kremlin may result in APOCALYPSE. Any accusations, especially against another state, must be supported by particular evidence, not by assumptions and conjectures. Searching evidence of Russia's participation in the crimes incriminated to it, one can peruse the Internet, but he or she will be greatly surprised, finding only the fantastic assumptions of prosecutors and nothing more.