Boris Johnson A Categorical Liar 1859

Evidence submitted by the British government in court today proves, beyond any doubt, that Boris Johnson has been point blank lying about the degree of certainty Porton Down scientists have about the Skripals being poisoned with a Russian “novichok” agent.

Yesterday in an interview with Deutsche Welle Boris Johnson claimed directly Porton Down had told him they positively identified the nerve agent as Russian:

You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?

Let me be clear with you … When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory …

So they have the samples …

They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, “Are you sure?” And he said there’s no doubt.

I knew and had published from my own whistleblowers that this is a lie. Until now I could not prove it. But today I can absolutely prove it, due to the judgement at the High Court case which gave permission for new blood samples to be taken from the Skripals for use by the OPCW. Justice Williams included in his judgement a summary of the evidence which tells us, directly for the first time, what Porton Down have actually said:

The Evidence
16. The evidence in support of the application is contained within the applications
themselves (in particular the Forms COP 3) and the witness statements.
17. I consider the following to be the relevant parts of the evidence. I shall identify the
witnesses only by their role and shall summarise the essential elements of their
i) CC: Porton Down Chemical and Biological Analyst
Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the
findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples
tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent OR CLOSELY RELATED AGENT.

The emphasis is mine. This sworn Court evidence direct from Porton Down is utterly incompatible with what Boris Johnson has been saying. The truth is that Porton Down have not even positively identified this as a “Novichok”, as opposed to “a closely related agent”. Even if it were a “Novichok” that would not prove manufacture in Russia, and a “closely related agent” could be manufactured by literally scores of state and non-state actors.

This constitutes irrefutable evidence that the government have been straight out lying – to Parliament, to the EU, to NATO, to the United Nations, and above all to the people – about their degree of certainty of the origin of the attack. It might well be an attack originating in Russia, but there are indeed other possibilities and investigation is needed. As the government has sought to whip up jingoistic hysteria in advance of forthcoming local elections, the scale of the lie has daily increased.

On a sombre note, I am very much afraid the High Court evidence seems to indicate there is very little chance the Skripals will ever recover; one of the reasons the judge gave for his decision is that samples taken now will be better for analysis than samples taken post mortem.


This website remains under a massive DOS attack which has persisted for more than 24 hours now, but so far the defences are holding. Some strange form of “ghost banning” is also affecting both my twitter and Facebook feeds. So please

a) Feel free to repost, republish, translate or spread this article anywhere and anyway you can. All copyright is waived.
b) If you came here by Twitter, please retweet but also in addition create a new tweet yourself containing a link to this post (or to any other site on which you have placed the information)
c) If you came here by Facebook, again please share but also in addition create a new post yourself which contains the information and the link.

The state and corporate media now have evidence of the vast discrepancy between what May and Johnson are saying, and the truth about the Porton Down scientists’ position. I am afraid to say I expect this to make no difference whatsoever to the propaganda output of the BBC.

1,859 thoughts on “Boris Johnson A Categorical Liar

1 2 3 17
  • Elaine

    Excellent work. Please keep it up – vitally important to get this shared as widely as possible.

  • fred

    “Even if it were a “Novichok” that would not prove manufacture in Russia, and a “closely related agent” could be manufactured by literally scores of state and non-state actors.”

    In his briefing to the Russian diplomatic community today the British ambassador made it quite clear.

    First, there is no doubt that the weapon used in the attack was the military-grade nerve agent from the Novichok series. This has been confirmed by specialists, our specialists. An Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons mission is in the UK now to independently confirm this analysis.

    There is also no doubt that Novichok was produced in Russia by the Russian state. It is not a weapon that can be manufactured by non-state actors. It is so dangerous it requires the highest grade state laboratories and expertise to produce it.

    Do you not think that maybe “closely related agent” could be scientist speak? Something they tag on to cover themselves, like saying domestos kills 99% of household germs when they know it kills 100%.

    • Herbie

      “In his briefing to the Russian diplomatic community today the British ambassador made it quite clear.”

      Ah well. That’s that then.

      Let’s just forget what the evidence says and listen to the British ambassador.

    • Ultraviolet

      Your last point may be right.

      But it doesn’t alter the fact that what Boris Johnson said cannot be squared away with the analyst’s sworn statement.

      • fred

        Boris Johnson said what someone at Porton Down had said to him in person. What someone said in person could be different to what it said in the official report.

        So if Boris was to say to one of the boffins “look what does this ‘or closely related agent’ bit mean? Are you certain or not?” and the boffin was to reply “yes we are certain” then he would have been telling the truth.

        • craig Post author

          Fred, sometime you really should listen to yourself. You are now positing that Porton Down gave a different answer to the Foreign Secretary than they gave to the High Court, on the most sensitive issue of the day.

          • Kiza

            Fred reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton and his challenge to the meaning of the word “is”.

            This just goes to prove that no matter what evidence you show them, some people will never digress from their own belief. Such also collect wisdom from TV advertisements of house dessinfectants. Just like that vulgar chemist who wrote to you in the end – it has got to be the Russians because only they do such things.

            Good luck living in a country in which such principles of law apply – “it has got to be you who killed because only you are capable of killing, we just know it”.

          • fred

            We are speculating on the meaning of the phrase “or closely related agent” means. Does it mean “different agent” or does it mean “intrinsically the same agent”, what a non scientific person would call the same agent.

            Maybe you could be a little more cautious about calling people liars it could all end in tears again.

          • Kiza

            i know that it is pointless, but let me explain something that should not need to be explained. If HMG really identified the nerve agent used in Skripal poisoning then its submission to court would have said: the nerve agent A-2617 was identified.

            Instead, HMG submitted: the nerve agent of the class Novichok and then broadened it even beyond class to “or closely related agent”.

            It does not take a degree in chemistry to understand that something related to a class can be half of all poisons in the world.

            Perhaps we will hear from Boris now that the secret intelligence that only he is privy to proves that Lucretia Borgia has been a secret Russian agent with a licence to kill.

          • Harry Law

            Just like the claims in Syria, it is ‘Sarin’ or a ‘Sarin like substance’, what a load of bollocks

          • DDTea

            “It does not take a degree in chemistry to understand that something related to a class can be half of all poisons in the world.”

            That simply isn’t true.

            The class of neurotoxic organophosphates, and particularly organophosphonates–all things considered–is pretty small. The essential and toxic core (phosphate + leaving group, especially if it’s F) is the hallmark of a weapon. The side chain affects its toxicokinetics, but is also environmentally labile and may be degraded easily. Considering this is forensic analysis, dealing with trace environmental samples (i.e.: complex “background” for the analysis), the statement “or closely related agent” is absolutely “scientist speak.”

            Scientists are trained not to give blanket statements.

            You, like Craig, are grasping at straws.

            For the record, “Sarin like substance” = Thiosarin, Chlorosarin, cyclosarin, Soman, thiosoman, chlorosoman, and other analogs with variations at the alkoxy side chain, so long as they allow the compound to be sufficiently volatile.

            It does NOT mean, “We don’t know what this stuff is!”

        • A Biochemist writes


          “A closely related agent” has no precise scientific meaning. It could mean “in the same chemical class” as Novichok but of indeterminate chemical structure at this time; or it could mean having the same toxicological effect as novichok, but not necessarily in the same chemical class (although this could refer to mode of synthesis, rather than of structural type).

          In either case, what it means is that they do not know the precise molecular structure of the agent concerned – and iif they don’t know that, they cannot sign it to Russia – or anyone else.

          But indeed, even if they did have a precise chemical structure, given that the synthetic processes have been published, even then they could not in any scientifically meaningful sense, ascribe its synthesis to Russia – or anyone else.

          The statement to the Court proves beyond any credible argument that the UK Government are simply lying, either to the court, or to the rest of us.

          • CanSpeccy

            Now we know they are lying, it is of interest to inquire why?

            Did Theresa May, Boris or someone else in the UK government come up with this stunt, or were they simply assigned a part in it by a close ally?

            If the latter, what option did they have? Had Theresa said, “fuck off Donald” what would have been the fallout?

            And is it plausible that T. Rex organized the Syrian event on his own, or was he required to take the fall once it was clear that the Russians had the goods on the CIA or whoever organized this with Trump’s approval?

          • Agent Green

            Apparently they are keen to start a war with Russia, even though Britain and the EU will be turned into smoking rubble first.

          • A Biochemist writes

            Indeed Agent Green – that would appear to be the aim. And with the appointment of loony John Bolton to be Trump’s national security advisor that moment may be coming closer. Join the dots

            The Deep State is on manoeuvres – and the Vassal State is obeying orders.

          • DDTea

            The synthetic process has *not* been published in any detail. Only the chemical structures by a defector. It’s rather curious that the same people now saying that “anyone could have made these agents–the formulas were published by Mirzayanov!” are the same people who, up unto a few weeks ago, were saying Mirzayanov had no credibility and that Novichoks never existed.

            But moreover, nothing was published about their potency, physical properties, spectroscopic properties (how do you characterize what you’ve made? how do you know you’ve made it?), or chemical reactivity/environmental lability. Regardless of anything Mirzayanov had said, none of it was corroborated.

            “or it could mean having the same toxicological effect as novichok, but not necessarily in the same chemical class ”

            No, it definitely does not mean that. An AChE-inhibiting carbamate is not a “novichok.” There has long been a reasoned degree of speculation around the “novichok” family, but even as diverse as that speculation has been, it does not include random chemicals from a far different series. Generally, Novichok agents possess interesting variations on the side chain–dihaloformaldoximes, cationic dimethyl sulfides, thioethers…

    • Steph

      As far as I can see the Ambassador did not say anything which disagrees with what Craig has written. I don’t think anyone is disputing that it was ‘produced in Russia’ originally. The doubt seems to be that it has also been produced elsewhere. In any case the point of this post is that Johnson has been lying, again. He just can’t choose his words carefully, because he is stupid.

      • Herbie

        “I don’t think anyone is disputing that it was ‘produced in Russia’ originally.”

        That’s disputed.

        By the OPCW.

        So, there was a program to attempt to develop these theoretical weapons in the Soviet Union (Uzbekistan)

        No evidence that the program was successful according to OPCW.

      • fred

        Craig stated categorically that the nerve agent could be made by non state actors and the ambassador stated categorically that it couldn’t.

        • craig Post author

          I actually know Laurie Bristow and he is definitely not a man burdened in any way by principles. Due to the ongoing DDOS attack which enters by the search facility on this site we have had to disable the search function. Once it is back I shall point you to past posting about him.

        • Kiza

          Craig did not state that Novichok could have been made by non-state actors without backing it up with an article describing a success by Iranian persons. There was also a claim by a US university professor that his students of chemistry could have synthisised it in the university lab based on published information.

          Whichever way we turn this matter it comes down to one’s beliefs, either:
          1) it has got to be the Russians because only they do such things, or
          2) let us wait till the proper investigation delivers results to decide.

          The problem that propagandists have with approach 2) is that by the time the investigation is over the emotional value of accusations would have mostly dissipated, they just must strike the propaganda iron of fear and hate whilst it is still hot.

          • DDTea

            NO! Dave Collum NEVER said his students actually synthesized the agent based on published information! If he did, that would be a patently illegal and reckless act. He mused that, “CHEM301 students” would be capable of the synthesis.

            And to anyone familiar with CHEM301 students, or any undergraduate in an organic chemistry research lab, they fully realized this was a narrow statement and an exaggeration. You weirdos have been giving it a whole other life.

            You have a hyperfocus on the ease/difficulty of combining two chemicals. But you’re forgetting that in a proper synthesis, the desired product has to be isolated and purified too. Considering I have yet to encounter anyone–post doc, graduate student, and sure as hell not an undergrad–who can run a sulfur reaction without me smelling it, I don’t have much faith in an undergraduate making a nerve agent with an LCt50 in the low part-per-billion range and surviving.

            The Iranian study produced 50-100 mg of nerve agent for analytical testing. This, in no way, demonstrates a capacity to carry out an R&D program to study any factor relevant to weaponization: toxicology, formulation, dispersal, persistence, etc. These require pilot plant scale manufacture, and methods appropriate to lab scale testing are entirely different than those that make it to a pilot plant. You’re grossly underestimating the R&D requirements for these agents–they rival those of any pharmaceutical drug or pesticide.

      • Robert Peffers

        Oh! Get real! It was developed in the USSR back in the 1970/80s and it is a class of nerve agents not a specific nerve agent/

        The OPCW oversaw the destruction of the USSR stock piles of chemical agents.
        It was specifically developed to use, safe by themselves, easy and cheap to obtain chemicals. It is also a binary agent perfectly safe as long as both parts are kept apart. Thus it can be made in two part solid form, transported safely and only brought together when required.

      • Agent Green

        The Russians deny that they have ever produced any such agent. So yes, people are disputing it.

    • John Edwards

      No source is given for the claim that the Novichok was produced in Russia by the Russian state. Not clear if this is something the OPCW will confirm or not (we do not know the terms of reference). His next point that the weapon cannot be manufactured by non state actors does not rule out possibility that it could be obtained by non state actors. Or of course manufactured by states other than Russia.

        • pebird

          Probably more accurate to say that the ambassador and ex-ambassacor did disagree, which is what I believe ambassadors are wont to do.

    • Robyn

      ‘This has been confirmed by specialists, our specialists. An Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons mission is in the UK now to independently confirm this analysis.’

      Or, to put it another way, the task of the OPCW is NOT to conduct an independent analysis, but to AGREE WITH ‘our specialists’.

  • Ex Pat


    You’ve got them rattled Craig. Already the story is no longer screaming headlines, just faded mentions, even in the Daily Heil.

    The nice part is that the British establishment may yet see blood running in the street. Theirs, if they loose control of the narrative!

    Who can forget the rabbit-caught-in-the-headlights look of fear on Boris’s face the morning after Brexit vote. – Boris booed and jeered as he leaves his house after Brexit, 24 June 2016 – Urban Picture UK – Youtube –

    “You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.” Michael Caine – The Italian Job –

    Just say “Up yours” to USUK Empire Neo-Con Nazi Nonce mass psychosis! – Biggus Dickus –

    – (Boris for it is he) – Youtube –

    (ER, Shome mishtake Shurely? Ed.) – Airplane –

  • J

    On a related note, this article by Prof. Niels Harrit claims that a document declassified in 2008 was the basis for the ongoing war in Afghanstian, and that the document is as evidence free as the Novichok claims:

    Is there any forensic evidence provided in this document to serve as a legal basis for the invocation of Article 5? Nothing. There is absolutely no forensic evidence in support of the claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan. Only a small part of the introductory text deals with 9/11, in the form of summary claims like the citation in Lord Robertson’s press release. The main body of the text deals with the alleged actions of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the nineties.

    On 4 October, NATO officially went to war based on a document that provided only ‘talking points’ and no evidence to support the key claim.

    Sound familiar? Of course, I’ve no idea if he’s right.

  • Tom

    What do you expect from Johnson? A grindingly stupid man who has never got a job on merit and is now desperately hoping the public don’t see through his lies for the Americans. No wonder the government don’t want to bring back grammar schools.

    • John A

      NOt really sure what you mean by the government does not want to bring back grammar schools. Firstly, the hardline Tories, and May for sure, want to bring back grammar schools. However, Boris Johnson went to the country’s poshest comprehensive where the entry qualifications are money and connections. Not brains. And therefore by no means a grammar school.

  • Ben

    I’m disoriented on Brexit..

    The latest is

    A. Good

    B. Bad.

    C. Good and bad Putin.

    D. All of the above

  • Clark

    New Viz character; Boris the Bullshitter. Textbook bullshitting:

    “Let me be clear with you” (though what is to follow is as clear as mud,) “…When I look at the evidence, I mean” (not me, actually, I mean) “the people from Porton Down, the laboratory… So they have the samples …They do.” (believe me) “And they were absolutely categorical” (about what?) “and I asked the guy myself,” (what did you ask him, Boris?) “I said, “Are you sure?” And he said there’s no doubt” (no doubt of WHAT, Boris?)

    What CAN you do with people like this?

  • Ross

    Has PC Plod managed to make a public appearance yet, or is he still speaking through media surrogates?

  • Clark

    Craig, I have to set you straight on this. Boris is as incapable of lying as he is of telling the truth. As strange as it may seem to rational minds, the concepts of truth and falsity simply do not exist in minds such as his. To him, everything is merely an opportunity for achieving his goals, or a threat to his credibility that needs to be bluffed over, and to those ends every statement he makes will be as vague as he can get away with under the circumstances.

      • Paul Hunter

        It is about right.

        In the 90’s young Boris used to write Eurosceptic articles for the Sunday Telegraph – really hard hitting pieces of writing, or so it seemed. Then along came Sir James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party, a political organisation perfectly suited to Johnson’s rhetoric you would have thought, except it wasn’t: as soon as the new party appeared BoJo suddenly changed his tune – all of a sudden leaving the EU became a very bad idea with Goldsmith being described as a dangerous demagogue and readers were warned in no uncertain terms not to vote for him. It was as if Boris was taking orders from someone above.

        He doesn’t mean anything he says.

  • Willie McKenna

    Keep up the good word. If your (our) suspicions are proven well founded, all those who swallow or press baron run media claims as the truth will learn to be more circumspect. Or will they?

  • Harry Law

    The Skripals are both in a coma in hospital after the nerve agent attack in Salisbury and therefore unable to give their consent to blood samples being taken or tested.
    A judge has given doctors permission to take blood samples from the former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, so that tests can be carried out by chemical weapons experts.
    The judge, David Williams, who is based in the family division of the high court in London, announced his decision on Thursday after analysing the case at a private hearing earlier this week.
    How come Doctors had to wait so long?
    Doctors have been given the legal right to take blood samples from unconscious or incapacitated drivers without their consent.
    The change – under the provisions of the 2002 Police Reform Act – comes into effect on Tuesday.

    A spokesperson for the Home Office said the provision, which took effect Oct. 1, gives doctors “a power, but not a duty” to take the samples.
    The British Medical Association (BMA), which had urged the government to change the law, has issued guidelines for MDs. It says there should be “a clear separation between the ‘CLINICAL’ care the patient is receiving and any forensic procedures with which patients are asked to cooperate.” Dr. Michael Wilks, chair of the BMA’s Ethics Committee, says the association rarely supports taking samples without patients’ consent, but in this case there is “a clear public interest” in having it done. He also pointed out that the law would help clear the names of some drivers.
    How much more of a public interest is it to save two peoples lives?

  • Barden Gridge

    “Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the
    findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples
    tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent OR CLOSELY RELATED AGENT.”

    What’s a “related compound”? Could it be something as ordinary as sheep dip or weedkiller? Could they be described as “nerve agents”, even if they’re not usually thought of in that sense?

    As for Johnson.
    I’ve watched his lies and obfuscation connected with the idiotic Garden Bridge project for the last two years.
    Some £46 million of public money was wasted on that because of him, never mind the disastrous Heatherwick new bus for London, the Dangleway, the Arcelor Mittal Orbit, the dodgy deal about West Ham getting the Olympic stadium.
    He has no conscience. He does not give a damn about anything other than Boris Johnson.

    In a German TV disscussion programme last night, Anthony Glees was calling for a boycott of the World Cup in Russia and actually said:
    “Boris Johnson would not have accused Putin if he didn’t have any proof”.
    ( Glees’ is quoted in German here: )
    He should try that line on a British audience, especially a London one.

  • Harry Law

    The doctors could have taken the blood of the Skripals on 4th of March and helped to save their lives see my comment above. If they die, could this be manslaughter?

    • Spaull

      I read it differently. As I understand it, samples have been taken for medical reasons as and when required. This hearing was about taking samples for investigative purposes. That generally cannot be done without consent. The Skripals can’t consent. Hence the need for the court application.

  • PreProle

    The judgement at the high court also stated –

    “c) The main consideration ought to be the beliefs and values that would be likely to influence the decision if Mr Skripal or Ms Skripal had capacity. An individual subjected to such an attack with personally catastrophic consequences would want to see it fully and properly investigated and that all appropriate steps to identify the perpetrators (individual and state) have been taken so that they can be held to account.”

    A ‘full and proper investigation’ into the Salisbury incident would HAVE to include the UK government’s agreement to supply Russia with blood samples from Mr and Ms Skripal, in accordance with CWC procedures and with Russia’s request in keeping with those procedures. As Russia alone hold the formulaic records by which to accurately measure the toxic type in the Skripals blood (should those toxins be Russian in origin), any investigation which excludes Russian participation can in no way be considered as “fully and properly” conducted. Furthermore, any effort to second-guess and thereby disregard whatever results a Russian participation may provide to an investigation can only be considered as an attempt against its ‘full and proper’ conclusion.

  • Je

    This smoking gun looks more like splitting hairs.
    ” a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent”.
    So it could be the original ‘new’ Soviet nerve agents or
    some further evolution of them perhaps. Not much between those two.

    The government may be overstating the circumstantial
    evidence they have… but its very unlikely they’re lying here…
    the cowardice and sycophancy of previous governments show
    how little they really want to pick a ‘fight’ with Russia… or
    Saudi Arabia… or anybody really. Small weak countries
    attacked in concert with the Americans excepted…

    • bj

      Splitting hairs maybe as important as splitting molecules.
      Anyway — the word ‘Soviet’, which you use, does not occur in the document that you seem to comment on. Neither does ‘Russia’ or ‘Russian’ (insofar as it relates to the chemical agent under discussion, or speculation if you want).
      Just saying.

      • J

        New cold War 2.0 with optional World War 3.0 extra’s, all yours with only vague assurances. Deposit required. Buy now while stocks last.*

        *Our products may differ from those described in the packaging, no refunds or returns.

        • DDTea

          Every time Russia messes up, people start talking about “World War 3” as if they are pentecostals warning of damnation or the rapture.

          No one’s going to war over this. But Russia will be held accountable.

  • Kenneth G Coutts

    Hi Craig.
    Marvelous news.
    Was it ideology that drove these low life’s to denegrate Russia
    And their president.
    Now this distasteful woman is over in Europe blatantly spouting lies.
    At the same time they hide behind the trademark, UK.
    Another blatant con.
    This latest outburst from Johnson comparing the up and coming world cup, to the world cup in 1930s Germany under Hitler, was an absolute outrage.
    Yet, all we heard from their media, oh! It’s just Boris chortle chortle.
    I am a Scot, these people do not speak for me and I can stake my life on it now , they do not speak for anyone else who is for Scotland.
    I don’t include the English branch office employees and their
    English BBC Stenographers in Scotland.
    I hope now , the other countries wake up to this disgrace
    England a pariah state.
    I dare say they will blame someone or perhaps another em!
    Chemical weapons inspector em! Suicide.
    Independence for Scotland, it really needs to happen.
    I hope this is the straw, that broke their back.
    Look forward to further developments.
    Thank goodness you and your people are there .
    Regards shared.
    Stay safe.

  • MJ

    If the Skripals really are in a Salisbury NHS hospital then It’s safe to conclude that no nerve agent was involved at all. This is because of the comments of the consultant and the the fact that they’re still alive

    • DDTea

      You misread the comment by the consultant.

      Every single instance of a chemical attack has had victims exposed to sublethal amounts.

      Nerve agent does not mean “instant and certain death if exposed in any amount.”

  • ohmygowd

    Could it be argued that all nerve agents are “closely related” and then speculated that the wording of the testimony was arrived at in a way of compromise between the scientist(s) and the government?

    Also, do we know if the blood sample was taken from the police officer who (it would appear) made sudden recovery? Can him being discharged from hospital be seen as a way to avoid giving the blood sample?

    • DDTea

      They all have similarities.

      But I would argue that Sarin is more related to Soman than either are to Tabun. And Sarin and Soman both share features with VX. But few organophosphorus pesticides share major structural similarities with weaponized nerve agents.

      So there are subfamilies. But that “closely related” statement is just scientist speak. Scientists never express certainties.

  • bj

    Just went googling for some pictures of Yulia Skripal, and, while weeding out some false positives, among the pictures that remain there are at least three /different ones/ where she and her father are raising glasses. Sometimes wine, sometimes poss. beer, sometimes poss. either.

  • Robert Peffers

    Yes, Craig, the lies were obvious from the very start. There is also the statement from the Salisbury Hospital consultant who ruled out that the nerve agent was as Blundering Boris claimed but if anyone has any doubts they only need notice how and solid evidence is so quickly closed down.

    The whole point about the Novichok Agent is that it is a class of nerve agents and not in itself a specific agent. It was developed to be produced from easy constituent parts that are not, in themselves dangerous, expensive or hard to come by. Thus anyone can produce them and without requiring large chemical plant installations.

    Furthermore they can be produced in a solid state binary manner and are thus safe to transport and only become active and dangerous when the two parts are brought together.

1 2 3 17

Comments are closed.