Boris Johnson Attempt to Refute My Sources on Porton Down the Most Hilarious Fail 266

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has issued a statement to refute my report from well-placed FCO sources that the British government continually re-uses the phrase “of a type developed by Russia” because its own scientists refused government pressure to say the nerve agent was made by Russia, and as getting even agreement to “of a type developed by” was bloody, the government has to stick to precisely that rather odd choice of phrase.

This is the official British Government statement:

“We have no idea what Mr Murray is referring to. The Prime Minister told MP’s on Monday that world leading experts at Porton Down had positively identified this chemical agent. It is clear that it is a military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. None of that is in any doubt”.

Which is perhaps the most hilarious fail in the history of refutation.

The BBC sprung that statement on me during a live interview on Radio 5 last night. They also sprung on me a statement by the Israeli Embassy and were attempting to lead me into accusing Israel of the attack. But even the BBC interviewer, Stephen Nolan, was flummoxed by the rubbish he had been given from the FCO. Here is an extract from that part of the interview:

Stephen Nolan: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have said to us tonight: “We have no idea what Mr Murray is referring to. The Prime Minister told MP’s on Monday that world leading experts at Porton Down had positively identified this chemical agent. It is clear that it is a military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. None of that is in any doubt”. Well, you’ve already covered that Craig and you are zoning in on the fact that they are saying “developed by Russia”, they are unable to say whether it’s made – well they are not saying whether it was actually manufactured in Russia or the source of it or whether it was from Russia, right?”

Craig Murray Yes, exactly. No-one doubts that the Russians had the idea of making these things first, and worked on developing the idea. It has always been doubted up till now that they really succeeded. The Iranians succeeded under OPCW supervision some time ago and the chemical formulae were published to the whole world twenty years ago. So many states could have done it. The “of a type developed by Russia” thing means nothing, undoubtedly.

You can hear the whole interview here beginning about 5 minutes in.

266 thoughts on “Boris Johnson Attempt to Refute My Sources on Porton Down the Most Hilarious Fail

1 2 3 4
  • DiggerUK

    Basher Boris has just said much the same on Twister Marr show.
    This is a propaganda war of attrition. It will end with a whimper, not a bang…_

    • Squeeth

      I’m watching my La Dolce Vita dvd and can’t tell the difference between it and the corp-0-rat media any more.

  • bliss_porsena

    On up the garden path we go. We do not know what it was, where it came from, how it was administered, where when and by whom, why it has proved less efficacious than touted and where and in what condition the victim Skripals are.

    All we have is unsubstantiated assertions by political and media hacks shilling for war with Russia.

  • P

    The Lead Consultant at Salisbury A&E has said nobody in Salisbury has been poisoned by a nerve agent.

    So is the point that you are still pressing Craig that;

    the nerve agent that wasn’t used was more likely not to come from Russia or Israel?

    • A

      @P Do you have a link re. the Lead Consultant at Salisbury A&E please? Why is this not garnering more scrutiny and reporting if true? (Yeah, I know why.)

      • P

        [ Md: Caught in spam-filter ]

        The Times, 16 Mar 2018
        Sir, Further to your report (“Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment”, Mar 14), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved.
        Stephen Davies
        Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust

      • Sharp Ears

        All repeated on the previous thread. If there was any credence in the story, the hospital Medical Director should have come out front and made a statement to the press and media. We have heard nothing. The last I heard from the CEO, Cara Charles-Barks, was that she was banning first class postage and changing the surgeons’ gloves to a cheaper make to save money. There is a£12m overspend. YCNMIU

        .Salisbury hospital trust ‘is £12.5m in debt’
        29th January 2018

      • DiggerUK

        March 17, 2018 at 22:51
        This case of unclear wording needs clearing up in a matter when little or no media attention seems to be on the victims, the hospital etc. :
        The Times published a letter from Stephen Davies (Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust) on the 16th March.
        ‘Sir, further to your report (‘Poision Exposure Leaves Nearly 40 needing Treatment’), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved.’
        That first sentence….carefully worded or carelessly worded?

        Posted by Mog. Previous thread…_

        • CanSpeccy

          “This case of unclear wording needs clearing up”

          Probably the unclear wording is the intended result of editing by the Times. Newspapers always reserve the right to edit letters to the Editor and often do so. If the letter from hospital consultant Stephen Davies was not edited by the Times, it should have been, since as published its meaning is, um, clearly obscure.

    • Gymknickers

      Incorrect. Dr Davies actually said than nobody other than the three people identified had been affected

      • Gymknickers


        Stephen Davies, a consultant in emergency medicine at the Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, said ‘No-one other than Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey have needed treatment’

      • P

        Incorrect, Davies said the only 3 (the Skripals and Bailey) had been poisoned. He said no one had been poisoned by nerve agent

        • Gymknickers

          This is rather pedantic. Are you saying that Dr Davies had to be that specific? And because he wasn’t, he’s in some way either collusive or untruthful or deliberately evasive or providing subliminal confirmation bias?

          What happened to patient confidentiality? I work for the NHS. I understand information governance. I suspect you don’t

          • P

            I don’t think Dr Davies is a pedant, he began his letter to the Times (what about patient confidentiality?) with;

            “may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury”

            If you think that is pedantry to clarify a very important point then I think you are wrong as you were in bringing up Dr Davies’ name on this thread, what about colleague respect?

            But thanks for the distraction from a very well made point by Dr Davies.

            No nerve agents were used in Salisbury!

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Yes, of course he had to be that specific. Do you not understand the significance of what he said? He is apparently alleging that three people were poisoned, but it was not by nerve agent. In the light of the past few days, does that not strike you as important, if that is what he actually meant?

          • Node

            Dr Davis drew a distinction between nerve gas poisoning and some other unspecified type of poisoning. He said ZERO patients suffered from the former and THREE patients suffered from the latter.

            ‘Sir, further to your report […] may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning.

            How else can that quoted sentence be interpreted? Dr Davis seems to be putting on record that he wants no part of the dishonesty centred around his place of work

          • PetrGrozny

            Gymnickers, by your logic If he said that there had been no cases of Bubonic Plague recently he might be breaching patient confidentiality. It has been widely reported that three patients have suffered poisoning, so there is no breach of confidentiality there. Maybe he thought he might be on slightly dicey ground by saying explicitly that they were not suffering from the type of poisoning reported hence the rather strange wording.

    • Made By Dom

      No offence to you or the others convinced they’re on to something here but the the key part of the Consultant’s letter is ‘Further to your report’.
      I don’t subscribe to the Times but I’d check the original report. From the paragraph that is available on The Times website, the paper incorrectly states that “38 people required hospital treatment for poisoning symptoms”. The key word there is ‘Symptoms’. I’m guessing the consultant is correcting the paper by saying that none of the 38 seen at the hospital had ‘Symptoms’ of nerve agent poisoning and the only three patients to have shown symptoms were the ones we already know about.

  • BrianFujisan

    BoJo..( Boris Johnson ) is a War Criminal..This Is FACT..So Too is theresa May…David Cameron .. Gordon Brown… Alister Cambel Tony Blair .. It’s great that craig’s Blog has got such huge readership

    • Squeeth

      He uses it to smear Corbyn over Ireland and as a preface to a bacofoil rant in favour of sectarian education and the right to inflict anti-gay bigotry on schoolchildren.

      • frankywiggles

        No, he’s virtually the only voice in a monolithic MSM who is defending Corbyn’s call for caution. He’s a conservative on matters of education .. who gives a fcuk? He’s not education secretary.

        All the neoliberal, neo-con warmongers putting handkerchiefs to their noses about Corbyn favour crap like free schools and huge tuition fees. Better to welcome any voice of sanity in these times of booting a nuclear power than subject them to liberal purity tests.

      • Shatnersrug

        Hitchen is married to this “I’m an old style Conservative that believes in true conservative Christian values” of course it can be deconstructed quite easily. It’s a classic Home Counties Conservative delusion, peter Oborne is an other one that though razor sharp is also married to this delusion – it has something to do with a their up bringing in England’s green and pleasant..

        Still that doesn’t preclude him from making good points. He is also a man of peace as Corbyn is and that alone is to be commended

        • Jiusito

          Oborne also speaks very highly of Corbyn’s judgement on foreign policy matters.

    • Gymknickers

      It would appear so. I blame the Ruskies for all the overnight snow. They’ve been messing with meteorology

      Anyone seen my tinfoil hat?

      • Sharp Ears

        Are your knickers navy blue and is there a pocket for your hanky? Your handle has taken me back to school days.

        • Gymknickers

          They’re grey. The pocket is where we used to store our neurotoxic powders on school trips to Wiltshire ?

          • giyane

            C’mon girls, we’re not interested in your personal hygiene problems, as my ex’s PE teacher said to her at the time. I found a photo of myself with shoulder-length hair wearing an animal skin in a school play. At that time the girls wore – virtually nothing. Even my mum ventured into wearing a miniskirt. How did we get to this prudish age when a female prime minister, without a scrap of evidence, thinks she can lecture the Russians? I thought these pompous public school twits like Rees-Morgue and Bodge-it Johnson had all died, yet like zombies they seem to have returned, worse than ever. Have they been cloned?

      • Rhys Jaggar

        Did they engineer 30cm of snow to Austrian alpine valleys on July 15th, 1981? I was an eye witness to that snow in Salzburgerland, so it definitely occurred. And winter 1981/2 started with a bang at the start of November and only left the valleys in late April 1982.

        Dreadful thing, weather variability.

        I spent 1982/3 in Salzburgerland as a gap year and we had no snow until December 18th in the valley, not much snow in the valley the whole winter and all gone before the end of March.

        But it was definitely the Russkies wot dun it.

      • Spencer Eagle

        Well, you’re not far off. I’ve no doubt the ‘Beast from the East’ met office narrative fits very nicely with the way in which the BBC are trying to alter the nations psyche into believing Russia is a threat.

    • DiggerUK

      March 18, 2018 at 10:21
      So if someone is killed by AK47, can we say he was killed by the Russians?

      Yes, but only if the parts were machined in Slovakia to a Russian design, transported by a Czeck driver born in 1972 in a Soviet era truck, and were using bullets manufactured to a Russian design, in a Georgian factory, built in the Soviet era, also built to a Soviet design

      If not, then plod of the yard will have to let them walk. Blind justice, dontcha just love it…_

      • Harry Law

        DiggerUK AK47’s are manufactured all over the world, including in America. It was invented by Mikhail Kalashnikov in the former Soviet Union in 1947. The point Craig agreed with in his interview was the same as his vodka analogy on his other thread, [On not being refuted] “I think I might now have a vodka. Of a type developed by Russia. Made in Warrington”.
        “Well, you’ve already covered that Craig and you are zoning in on the fact that they are saying “developed by Russia”, they are unable to say whether it’s made – well they are not saying whether it was actually manufactured in Russia or the source of it or whether it was from Russia, right?”

        Craig Murray Yes, exactly.

    • Etienne

      No, but if the Russians were to deny any knowledge of AK47s, refute their origins and go on to deny they even exist – as they have done with Novichok – it would look kind of fishy.

    • @MontyBestUK

      That is the exact point, forget the weapon, just a Russian manufactured bullet appears to qualify!

  • Ross

    Very noticeable that the supposed victims of this supposed attack are being media managed down the memory hole.

      • J

        No, but I had inferred the necessity for such a thing by the strategies employed. Good to know.

      • Martinned

        Hang on, now you guys have conspiracy theories about the nudge unit??? What’s next, [insert less suspicious government body here – I can’t think of one]?

        • giyane

          The official Government Inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower still seems to be unaware that it was caused by voltage surges in the Mains. The government nudges that it was caused by a faulty freezer is all we’ve been told. Think of the cost to government if it was held responsible for arson.
          The reckless stream of pejorative adjectives applied to Russia by the government would have to be chemically re-constituted at the correct temperature and be re-applied to themselves.

  • Alexander Zucrow

    Unfortunately, Boris knows from experience that if you lie with enough conviction and cunning, leaving enough room for the desired interpretation, the press will report your statements as desired, and the public will believe. He’s read Orwell as an instruction manual.

    • Christoph Jensen

      correction: the instruction manual is Edward L. Bernays “Propaganda”, New York 1928, favorite of Joseph Goebbels.

    • Squeeth

      Actually the public don’t believe and it doesn’t matter because we’ve been removed from politics. This is all for show, just like them Red Square parades of the 70s reported on by Kremlin watchers.

    • giyane

      Boris does not possess either the cunning nor the conviction required to be a British government Minister. That’s the problem, no gravitas whatsoever from a government that has delusions of Imperial power and influence.
      Mrs May and her entire cabinet should resign and hand power to a party not entangled by its psychological delusions.

  • TonyT16

    Please keep the pressure up, Craig. It is producing results quite plainly. I watched Marr this morning and Boris was definitely the comedy act.

    One rule in diplomacy is to think twice, thrice and hopefully more times before saying what cannot be ‘unsaid’. Boris broke that rule many times. Try calling your mother-in-law a fat, ugly bitch and see whether a bunch of flowers and a box of chocolates will fix future relations.

    We need to treat Russia with respect, even if we do not concur with all its ideas and decisions. There remains no evidence beyond malicious accusation by politicians that Mr. Putin sat at his desk and sent instructions for the assassination of the Skripals. The possibility, let alone probability holds minimal credibility. As and when incontrovertible evidence is published the judiciary (and we) can all take a view. Until that moment our politicians and media should calm down.

    • Shatnersrug

      I think Putin is in on it, it makes him look tough before his election and he certainly doesn’t want a Corbyn government freezing his assets.

    • JohnsonR

      Bear in mind that it’s highly likely the immediate deliberately offensive and provocative British government line to Russia was most likely intended to provoke the justifiably hostile response it got, which them allowed HMG to declare that the “sarcastic and hostile” Russian response somehow proved they were guilty – a line uncritically repeated by the government stenographers we have instead of journalists in this country.

  • John A

    Has Boris accused Craig Murray of smirking? That was BoJo’s ‘proof’ on BBC Breakfast the other day that Putin was behind the alleged nerve gas attack. According to BJ, smirking is proof of guilt and evildoing!

  • Christoph Jensen

    making a file for posterity? Westminster is busy making one, to be released in 40 years time … incubation time for truth disclosure. Only Dr. Kelly’s files need a bit longer.

  • AlexT

    Not a big BBC fan but I’m genuinely surprised they gave you the opportunity to voice your opinion – I think this has to be put to their credit.

    • craig Post author

      Alex – yes. On the other hand I think they were hoping that confronting me without warning with the quotes about me from the FCO and Israeli Embassy might flummox me. And it was a show nobody listens too…

    • Tom

      Plus Stephen Nolan is an excellent broadcaster.
      The R4 Today crew would have huffed and puffed until Craig had no time to get his point across.

    • CanSpeccy

      Yes, and the interview was nicely juxtaposed with Thereason May’s ridiculous fact-free assertion of Russian guilt: “the attempted assassination of two people on British soil for which there was no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable.” I guess she means no alternative conclusion will be entertained by the British Government, whatever evidence may be produced, if any evidence ever is produced.

      But perhaps the supposed logic is that Putin chose to order Skripal’s pointless murder at a time of maximum awkwardness for himself —
      i.e., (a) on the eve of Russia’s presidential election, (b) just a couple of months before Russia is to host the World Cup soccer tournament, and (c) within a year or so of completion of the Nordstream gas pipeline that is supposed to carry billions of cubic meters of Russian natural gas to markets in Northern Europe, a development opposed by the US which is seeking to get Europeans to purchase expensive liquefied US natural gas, a surplus byproduct of fracking for oil — since no one would believe him to be that stupid, so he’d get clean away with it without the slightest blemish to Russia’s reputation.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    This is curious and interesting. I found it while poking around for Dr Stephen Davies’s contact details, as he is obviously the person to get hold of, to ask if he actually meant what he said in the Times. (His GMC number is 4122151, if that assists Craig or any other enterprising journalist.) Someone has made a complaint on line about Salisbury A&E, on the grounds that they went there worried about nerve agent poisoning and got a real brush off.


    “Extremely unhelpful and wasting time

    Referred by the Walk In Centre for the suspect exposure to the Nerve Agent and unexplained symptons for potential protocols for Nurve Agent treatment. Seen by the Practice Nurse, extremely unhelpful, no blood test has been taken and no reassuring for anything, (there is not any publication regarding to the nerve agent and long term symptons), how could the clinicans say people are fine without even been proper checked and taken the blood test? No assurance and really concered for the service provide to other potential nerve agent exposure paitent, it was a totally waste of my time.”


    Well, it might mean nothing. It might be that there was obviously no reason to worry, or that if they were poisoned they would be dead and everyone around them too. I don’t know. But it does chime quite well with Dr Davies’s apparent claim that there was no nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury, and perhaps the hospital staff know it.


      • John Spencer-Davis

        Shrug. Perhaps you are right. On the other hand, a walk-in centre apparently took the person seriously enough to send them to A&E, and a little reassurance from the hospital might have been nice, if the person is reporting accurately.

        • Nomatestype

          As an A&E and Minor Injury Unit charge nurse for many years , having had trauma and chemical injuries training (certainly only basic level chemicals training ) I can assist you on this.

          The complainant has gone to a walk in centre. These are staffed by nurses only and work to protocols. The nurses can be very knowledgeable about the presentations covered by the protocols, but do not initiate assessment or treatment beyond those protocols, as they are not legally recognised as competent to do so.

          So if you attend reporting health problems not covered in their operating procedures you will be advised to attend your GP, or A&E if a possible urgent concern

          The person complaining has therefore attended A&E, concerned they “may have” been exposed to an unidentifiable substance. They will have been triaged on arrival which includes a basic assessment of pulse , temperature etc.

          Without definite confirmation of any mechanism of injury, or any abnormal signs or symptoms quite correctly received verbal advice and reassurance .

          This is correct treatment .

          People attending A&E or Minor Unjury Units and getting a huff because they have not experienced some anticipated procedure is very common.

          If the person complaining had been treated as a potential victim of neurotoxic chemicals they would have been isolated in a chemical protective tent; only interacting with fully suited and visored carers mostly communicating non verbally ( the suits hugely muffle hearing and speech). Their blood sample would have to be specially protected and transported to a specialist site for testing etc

          They would soon be moaning about that isolation and inconvenience, especially as they did not feel unwell.

          And of course the disruption to the hospital would be enormous

          People receive the intervention appropriate to the medical risk they exhibit. For their benefit as well as the hospital’s

          Sorry about the length of this

          • rwendland

            Great reply. Worth noting that in the Tokyo subway sarin attack about 80% of people who went to hospital A&E were the “worried well”. 5,500 went to hospital. Most made their own way there, in this larger incident, but only about 1,000 had vision problems (which diminished within about 24 hours). The Stimson Centre post-assessment said of the non-critical cases 37 were severe and 984 moderately ill with vision problems.

    • Ecstatic Ex Cop

      Bear in mind that people these days take themselves to A&E (when they’re not demanding an ambulance as a freebie taxi) for all manner of minor or imagined ailments. To be rebuffed by an expert must come as a shock to those convinced they’re dying by virtue of living in the same town as someone else who really might be.

    • Ex Pat

      Paul Craig Roberts is a Reich-wing Reagan-nazi re-tread. It is _never_ worth reading anything by him.

      The idea that a Reagan-nazi has reformed and become a left-wing – or even mildly liberal – opponent of the US Empire is utterly laughable.

      As a former Reich-wing Reagan-nazi era US Treasury official he has _never_ apologized for any of the crimes of the US Empire during that time.

      The murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Guatamala, Nicaragua and Honduras and elsewhere.

      He is now a geriatric and the idea that he spends his declining years writing propaganda is laughable. But someone does and they use his name. So I’d not waste my – or our – time …

      Hopefully you aren’t old enough to have known that from being there. Because the alternative is steering the rubes to a propaganda source. Of whom there are so many.

      Try John Pilger and Wikileaks if you want definitely-not propagandists. As for the rest … good luck!

      • emk

        How do you know his stuff is never worth reading? Do you read it?
        He also does podcasts and videos, so we know its him. So your two laughables are themselves laughable.

  • Bob Downie


    Hi Craig,

    I have send you a link to the recording of the Stephen Nolan interview.


  • Iain Lawson

    The toxin used to murder the brother of the North Korean leader at the airport was of a type first produced in Britain by ICI in the 1950’s.

    Does Mrs May accept Britain’s culpability for this murder and would she be happy for the World to hold her responsible?

    • Martinned

      Wait, it’s somehow the UK government’s fault that Craig Murray is trying to imply/say that the Russians are innocent because the weapon may not have been manufactured in Russia? No one else is claiming such a direct link between location of manufacture of the weapon and guilt of the murder.

        • giyane


          Fair point. Nobody’s yet died. But if they want to talk about ‘attempted murder’, what about the attempted colonial conquest of sovereign nations using violent extremist Islamists in Libya and Syria, the legacy of William Hague. What we need now is for this disgusting Tory administration to stop projecting its vile malignancy onto Russia and to sit in sackcloth and ashes for a few decades in the sin cupboard..

      • AS

        Your argument is verging on incoherent, but to explain: Craig Murray is saying, like many others, that Russia is not necessarily guilty of the alleged nerve agent attack just because the nerve agent was initially developed in Russia (the USSR). There is formulation, development, manufacture, transportation and administration. You seem to be mixing all of them.

  • Jacqueline Thomson

    There are just so many holes in the prime ministers account as there has been in so many of her comments on uk matters, it beggars belief. But then that’s what happens when you control the media and are doing deals left right and centre to fool the so called British public to get your own way allowing you to stay in office gerrymandering things for your own ends and financial benifit. The intelligent public in high office don’t want it to change as they are beniffiting and at the other end folk are so down trodden and overwhelmed with misinformation they are fearful it could get worse so say nothing.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    On the other hand, if Dr Davies is correct, then Craig’s Porton Down sources are obviously having him on, because they say it was a nerve agent but not identifiable as originating in Russia.

    • Cathra

      Not necessarily. Do we know anything about how the sample was retrieved and tested?

      I doubt the scientists visited the scene themselves and then popped back to the lab.

  • Etienne

    The thing is, the Russian’s are being devious in their wording too.

    Since, we now have confirmation via the Iran paper that not only does Novichok exist, but the OPCW were well aware of the tests at the time, here we have a senior Russian diplomat who is ALSO the Russian OPCW representative, apparently being somewhat economical with the truth, to put it mildly. An outright denial such as this when there is evidence from multiple sources (a number of Russian scientists in 1992) to the contrary points more towards Russia’s guilt than its innocence.

    “Alexander Shulgin is Russia’s ambassador to the Netherlands and also the Russian representative at the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

    “There has never been any programme under the group name ‘novichok’ in the Russian Federation,” he said.

    • Ex Pat

      You are aware that you quoted _Sky_news_ – a 100% Reich-wing propaganda site – owned and manipulated by Rupert Murdoch???

      On the other hand Alexandr Shulgin was extremely well informed and non-devious when he pointed out:

      @ 6:20 – “(In the early 1990s, foreign) special services took a group of scientists… with the research that existed since the Soviet times” out of the country so that they could go on with their studies.

      “We know the exact countries where such work continued, achieving certain success,” Shulgin said, without naming any. “The positive results of those studies can now be found in open sources.”

      “Therefore, we can assume that the source of the substance used (against Skripal) in Salisbury is concealed in one of the countries where this research continued and achieved certain success”

      “Alexandr Shulgin, Russia’s permanent representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and ambassador to the Netherlands, discusses the issue of Skripal incident.” –

      – “UK accuses Russia of Skripal incident but they had cases of lying in the past – OPCW representative” @ RT, 16th March 2018 – Youtube –

      – Shocked. Shocked! To find that the Neo-Con Nazis of the U.S. Empire or Israel did it.

    • Akos Horvath

      If there was a Novichok program and it was initiated and concluded during Soviet times, then he is correct in saying that such program didn’t exist in the Russian Federation. The RF does not equal the USSR. In my experience the Western MSM is just as propagandistic as anything we had behind the iron curtain. The difference is that Westerners seem to swallow everything hook line sinker, while we had a healthy dose of scepticism about everything official.

  • Martinned

    Why is this so important to you? Why is the location where the weapon was made more important than the identity of the culprit?

    (Speaking of which, I wouldn’t worry, I’m sure the Russian people will today reaffirm how much they love Vladimir V. Putin, and how much they would like for him to be President for Life if only the constitution allowed it…)

    • JohnsonR

      Why is this so important to you? Why is the location where the weapon was made more important than the identity of the culprit?

      Are you seriously asking why the location is important, when the entire government case for rushing to judgement against Russia is based upon arguing that it must have been Russia because it was a weapon “of a type developed by Russia”?

      • Hmmm

        Funny thing is that he considers himself serious!!!
        I PMSL whenever I read his posts – I hope he continues trolling here for many a year.

        • JohnsonR

          “Funny thing is that he considers himself serious!!!”

          Not really, surely? I mean, it’s reassuring in a way to assume these people are lying. The idea of the combination in one person of the ability to write coherent sentences with the sheer stupidity required to seriously ask the question he asks is … disturbing.

    • Akos Horvath

      Very transparent shifting of the goal posts. Up to this point the UK government line, which you faithfully parroted here, was centered on the claim the poison was made in Russia. Now that there are serious doubts about even the scientific possibility of ever proving this, you suddenly say it’s not important, let’s focus on the perpetrators, about whom you know even less. You seem to have a serious issue with Putin, might be a sign of having a secret crush on him.

    • emk

      Can someone explain why “Westerners” are so concerned about what goes on in other peoples countries? Whether Putin, wins, rigs, steals the election or is made Tsar, is Russian business. Whether Xi is made President for life is Chinese business. So an American guy on youtube in 2014 who was going to go to Russia to ferret out corruption in their preparation for the Sochi Olympics. Only a westerner would think of that.

  • squirrel

    I’m really not happy with our public servants taking the piss the like this and continuing to treat us like total idiots.

      • Akos Horvath

        Well, they probably assumed everybody is just as gullible as you are, so churning out this extremely low-quality propaganda would suffice. Here in Germany the hysterics of May’s and BoJo’s government don’t seem to be big news. But again, Germans didn’t swallow the Iraqi WMD lies unlike the British public. I mean who can take a government seriously with a foreign secretary as clownish as BoJo.

  • Mark Russell

    Good interview – it will be interesting to see how many media outlets follow it up and ask the question. The issue of culpability was diplomatically handled, particularly in regard to Israel. However, all things considered, even if evidence of Mossad involvement emerged, I sincerely doubt public disclosure would be served in this instance. That said, they have more to gain from this incident than any other party.

  • P Dawg

    Stephen Nolan is a clear overweight eating himself into the ground state propagandist. He is loose with the truth when it comes to farming, cycling, science, politician’s statements and health, that’s the topics I know enough about to refute him let alone others. I don’t trust him for a minute.

    Why can’t people tell the difference between *made* and *developed* by Russia?

  • pete

    Getting back to the subject, I would love to hear that interview, your link leads to radio 5 live, but the bbc have made the program unsearchable to the non-technically minded and I am not going to listen to hours of pap in the hope of catching it on a repeat. So if anyone can capture the interview for posterity maybe more of us can hear it and make up our own minds on what the government is trying to present this case to us as. I find Craig’s argument credible.

    • JohnsonR

      Just click at the 08:41 time mark, on the progress bar below the picture of the gorgeous, pouting Stephen Nolan.

  • Republicofscotland

    Whitehall and the Knesset, are getting jittery as more and more people begin to realise “That of a type produced by Russia” is actually produced by a rogue state who’s not ratified with the OPCW.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.