Skripals – The Mystery Deepens 3063

The time that “Boshirov and Petrov” were allegedly in Salisbury carrying out the attack is all entirely within the period the Skripals were universally reported to have left their home with their mobile phones switched off.

A key hole in the British government’s account of the Salisbury poisonings has been plugged – the lack of any actual suspects. And it has been plugged in a way that appears broadly convincing – these two men do appear to have traveled to Salisbury at the right time to have been involved.

But what has not been established is the men’s identity and that they are agents of the Russian state, or just what they did in Salisbury. If they are Russian agents, they are remarkably amateur assassins. Meanwhile the new evidence throws the previously reported timelines into confusion – and demolishes the theories put out by “experts” as to why the Novichok dose was not fatal.

This BBC report gives a very useful timeline summary of events.

At 09.15 on Sunday 4 March the Skripals’ car was seen on CCTV driving through three different locations in Salisbury. Both Skripals had switched off their mobile phones and they remained off for over four hours, which has baffled geo-location.

There is no CCTV footage that indicates the Skripals returning to their home. It has therefore always been assumed that they last touched the door handle around 9am.

But the Metropolitan Police state that Boshirov and Petrov did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the poisoning. That means that they could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals’ doorknob before noon at the earliest. But there has never been any indication that the Skripals returned to their home after noon on Sunday 4 March. If they did so, they and/or their car somehow avoided all CCTV cameras. Remember they were caught by three CCTV cameras on leaving, and Borishov and Petrov were caught frequently on CCTV on arriving.

The Skripals were next seen on CCTV at 13.30, driving down Devizes road. After that their movements were clearly witnessed or recorded until their admission to hospital.

So even if the Skripals made an “invisible” trip home before being seen on Devizes Road, that means the very latest they could have touched the doorknob is 13.15. The longest possible gap between the novichok being placed on the doorknob and the Skripals touching it would have been one hour and 15 minutes. Do you recall all those “experts” leaping in to tell us that the “ten times deadlier than VX” nerve agent was not fatal because it had degraded overnight on the doorknob? Well that cannot be true. The time between application and contact was between a minute and (at most) just over an hour on this new timeline.

In general it is worth observing that the Skripals, and poor Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, all managed to achieve almost complete CCTV invisibility in their widespread movements around Salisbury at the key times, while in contrast “Petrov and Boshirov” managed to be frequently caught in high quality all the time during their brief visit.

This is especially remarkable in the case of the Skripals’ location around noon on 4 March. The government can only maintain that they returned home at this time, as they insist they got the nerve agent from the doorknob. But why was their car so frequently caught on CCTV leaving, but not at all returning? It appears very much more probable that they came into contact with the nerve agent somewhere else, while they were out.

“Boshirov and Petrov” plainly are of interest in this case. But only Theresa May stated they were Russian agents: the police did not, and stated that they expected those were not their real identities. We do not know who Boshirov and Petrov were. It appears very likely their appearance was to do with the Skripals on that day. But they may have been meeting them, outside the home. The evidence points to that, rather than doorknobs. Such a meeting might explain why the Skripals had turned off their mobile phones to attempt to avoid surveillance.

It is also telling the police have pressed no charges against them in the case of Dawn Sturgess, which would be manslaughter at least if the government version is true.

If “Boshirov and Petrov” are secret agents, their incompetence is astounding. They used public transport rather than a vehicle and left the clearest possible CCTV footprint. They failed in their assassination attempt. They left traces of novichok everywhere and could well have poisoned themselves, and left the “murder weapon” lying around to be found. Their timings in Salisbury were extremely tight – and British Sunday rail service dependent.

There are other possibilities of who “Boshirov and Petrov” really are, of which Ukrainian is the obvious one. One thing I discovered when British Ambassador to Uzbekistan was that there had been a large Ukrainian ethnic group of scientists working at the Soviet chemical weapon testing facility there at Nukus. There are many other possibilities.

Yesterday’s revelations certainly add to the amount we know about the Skripal event. But they raise as many new questions as they give answers.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

3,063 thoughts on “Skripals – The Mystery Deepens

1 5 6 7 8 9 19
    • J

      After reading they All Love Jack by Bruce Robinson the methodology, patterns and tell tale characteristics of cover-up are abundantly familiar.

      • J Galt

        Brilliant book.

        What a shower of utter bastards the English Establishment were and are.

        The conspiracy to bring down Charles Stewart Parnell is covered in passing by Robinson, Salmond is now getting the “Parnell treatment” – I wonder if we’ll get some dodgy hotel room “suicides” in his case too!

  • RR

    Petrov and Boshirov could have been hired to fly to the UK and then go to certain places at certain times. They may not have even suspected the seriousness of their walking about casually, window shopping etc. Someone pays you handsomely to do something, which on the surface seems like very a inocent pastime: take public transport, walk down the streets, window shop etc. – basically, be visible. They’ve probably been set up.
    Who knows where the pair is now? Doubtful that in Russia.
    There was no nerve agent poisoning. The Skripals were given something far less dangerous and then the establishment spun this wild story around it.
    It’s all a complete fabrication, a cheap movie with bad actors and bad directors.

      • frank

        Mohammad Sidique Khan,Hasib Mir Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay. These patsies ended up dead.

    • Chris Abbott

      Such obvious lack of care does indeed suggest a couple of stooge decoys. But wait, who could fall for that? Oh….

  • Charles Bostock

    May one assume that the various commenters have shared their insights and theories with the police and security services in order for the truth to be established? Surely the fruits of so much intellectual effort and sleuthing should not go to waste by being confined to the columns of this blog? Confirmation welcome.

    • RR

      Except that the police will not be interested in our theories because it doesn’t support the
      government’s official version.

      • Charles Bostock

        That comment is typical for a conspiracy theorist, isn’t it – “I know the truth but since the authorities won’t listen to me I shall just rabbit on about it in the alternative media but shall not share my insights with the competent authorities”.

        It’s very cynical and I think you should adopt a positive approach and try sharing with the authorities directly – you never know, perhaps they will take you seriously. Give it a go!

        • MaryPaul

          This was a joke right? The Met Police is running the investigation. Interest in public theories? If you were familiar with how they operate, you would know that consulting with the public is the last thing they are ever interested in.

          • Charles Bostock

            Certainly not a joke, MaryPaul. But it’s not a question of “consulting”, is it, it’s a question of the public supplying what it thinks are leads. I’m not advocating the police should engage in an ongoing dialogue with each and every person who supplies the leads.

            Surely you are aware that the police, when investigating more common garden crimes, frequently appeal to the public for leads and look at them carefully.

            Do you not find it strange that my suggestion has not met with a single positive response?

          • Mary Paul

            In my experience the Met Police, where there is a big public interest case, has its own agenda in nearly all cases. In small local events like an road traffic accident or an assault it will ask for witnesses but certainly not in anything else. Other forces may be different. As their anti-terror unit is handling the Salisbury case, I imagine the local police have been sidelined.

        • Tom Welsh

          If the police want to learn about the ideas and facts mentioned in this thread, all they have to do is read it. Why would they need to be spoon-fed as if they weren’t familiar with the Web and Craig’s blog?

          • Charles Bostock

            You are not entirely wrong, Tom. But you know, the police do have many other investigations to carry out in the normal course of their work, there is a time and resources constraint. Furthermore, if I were the police or the security agencies I might take a commenter’s willingness to get in touch directly with his/her leads as some sort of indication of how seriously the commenter really takes them (as opposed to just killing time writing on the internet). Surely a more pro-active and positive approach should be adopted?

          • Charles Bostock

            @ Adam

            It might arouse some people’s sense of self-importance to think so but I doubt if they do. I imagine that the focus would be on practitioners and potential practitioners and not on sundry malcontents and armchair warriors, and when i say practitioners I am not referring to the “squeeze n’ bruise Israeli fruit and veg in Tesco’s” brigade!

      • Charles Bostock


        I have published no insights and theories about this affair, nor indeed claimed to have any, and therefore have no need to communicate with the police and security services. But that’s not your case, is it.

        • Tom Welsh

          “I have published no insights and theories about this affair, nor indeed claimed to have any…”

          In that case why are you taking up space in this comments section?

          • Charles Bostock

            I am commenting on the insights and theories published here while at the same time avoiding the temptation to engage in unproductive amateur sleuthing. Do I not have the right to do so?

            Surely the mater is rather simple – if someone really believes that they have spotted something substantive, why should they not wish to help the truth to be established?

          • pretzelattack

            and your comments on the comments have provided no insights, so why are you taking up space again?

          • Merkin Scot

            ““I have published no insights and theories about this affair, nor indeed claimed to have any…”

            In that case why are you taking up space in this comments section?”

        • Charles Bostock

          Point noted, but the thrust of the enquiry – the “aromatics” – perhaps gives a clue as to whether humour was intended by Captain Scarlett.

    • fonso

      How much intellectual effort is needed to understand that Putin had nothing to gain, and much to lose, by ordering such an attack in Britain? Or that these alleged poisoners were quite obviously not high-calibre state security agents?

      • Charles Bostock

        Thank you for those insights. But need the poisoners have been high-calibre? Perhaps they were, as you seem to be saying, low-calibre. But whether high, medium or low calibre, surely you’d wish to help the public authorities to establish the truth and, to that end, share with them any thoughts and insights you might consider valuable? (Obviously, no need to share if you consider them to be valueless)

          • Charles Bostock

            Of course not and it would be good if those commenting on here would confirm whether or not they have got in touch with the police, etc directly.

            But enough on this – people must act according to heir conscience, I can only suggest and not force.

          • Made By Dom

            Sadly, I think some of this lot made contact with a Doctor at Salisbury Hospital.
            I did actually try very hard to stop them. I debunked their crazy theory in at least three posts and tried to make some kind of official complaint but it fell on deaf ears.
            That’s the real problem with this website. Everyone is into ‘free speech’ when it comes to alternative theories but not so keen on it when it comes to debunking conspiracies.

            I think the Police are probably quite used to crackpot theories but wasting the NHS’s time is a disgrace in my opinion.

          • Charles Bostock

            Made By Dom

            Thanks for your support. If what you write about OUR NHS is correct then it’s a disgrace that people are wasting that national insittution’s time, surely they must know that it’s hard-pressed enough as things are?

          • Borncynical

            @MadebyDom 12.29 – “I debunked their crazy theory in at least three posts…” You have straightaway demonstrated why people don’t pass on their thoughts to the police. They will be met with the same reaction as yours with no justification. When the approach was made to the doctor it was to seek an explanation for something he wrote which, as he had worded it, completely shattered the official narrative. Their pursuit of an explanation was completely valid. The fact the doctor then subsequently clarified that his original letter was edited by the Times newspaper, thereby distorting what he had said, only goes to show that it was right to be puzzled by what he wrote. If the MSM won’t query these matters when they stare them in the face then it is left to ‘amateur sleuths’ to do the journalists’ job for them.
            Likewise, the MP for Salisbury, John Glen, in a Guardian article said he had been asked by constituents to raise questions with the Government about the Skripal affair. And what was his reaction to this? “I’m not going to get embroiled in armchair conspiracy theories”. Asking for an explanation of inconsistencies and ‘evidence’ which conflicts with established scientific information does not in my book constitute a conspiracy theory. I have written to my MP putting forward my questions about the details of the official narrative and forwarding articles written by eminent investigative journalists and I’ll leave you to guess what response I got. You see, there you have it in a nutshell – people ‘in authority’ consider valid questioning of the FACTS presented to us to be ‘conspiracy theories’ and therefore worthy of nothing more than contempt. You really think any old Policeman Plod is going to take steps to challenge the official narrative because I, or anyone else, ask him to?

        • Yeah, Right

          I’m genuinely curious, Charles: do you not see any inconguity between Teresa May’s claim that this was a state-sanctioned assassination attempt authorised at the Very Highest Levels Of The Kremlin and your own shoulder-shrugged why-can’t-they-be-low-calibre?

          That seems to me to require cognitive dissonance of the very highest calibre.

          If I were head of the GRU and
          A) Vladimir Putin personally orders this
          B) I’d put my very best men on the job

          You really think otherwise?

          • Charles Bostock

            I think the expression “low calibre” referred to the perpetrators and not to those in Moscow who might (or might not) be investigating.

          • Yeah, Right

            I’ll ask again, because I’ll note that you didn’t answer me: do you really think that the GRU would dispatch two of the Three Stooges in order to carry out an assassination attempt that had been authorized at The Very Highest Levels Of The Kremlin?


            Because I will remind you – again – that Teresa May describes this as “state-sanctioned” which must mean the the head of the GRU has available to him the full resources of the Russian Federatio n in order to ensure the successful execution of Vladimir Putin’s “execution order”.

          • Charles Bostock

            @ Yeah Right

            Apologies for neglecting to reply immediately. The answer to your question is of course YES (the Kremlin or one of the dubious circles closely connected with the Kremlin acting with the Kremlin’s tacit consent). I have seen no better explanations – have you?

          • Njegos


            I think it is fair to say that the government’s case is far from proved. As CM notes, every new “lead” raises more questions than it answers.

            The police have their methods/protocols for investigating. What is more worrying (but not surprising) is how the corporate media systematically ignores holes in the government’s narrative. That is where the debate should be but is absent. Why?

          • Yeah, Right

            Sorry Charles, I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding here, because “of course YES (the Kremlin or one of the dubious circles closely connected with the Kremlin acting with the Kremlin’s tacit consent)” doesn’t actually answer my question.

            So I’m going to ask the same question for the 3rd time: Do you believe that the top leadership of the Kremlin can order the GRU to assassinate someone and the GRU would respond by sending “low-calibre” assassins to carry out that order?

            I’m not asking you if you believe that the Kremlin leadership ordered this hit.
            I’m not asking you if you think the assassins were of a “low-calibre”.

            I’m asking you how you can reconcile those two contradictory propositions.

          • Charles Bostock

            You’re funny. YOU (not I) cobble up out of nowhere two statements which you characterise as contradictory and then ask ME to reconcile them. Am I missing something here?

            What’s your preferred explanation of the whole affair?

          • Yeah, Right

            “You’re funny. YOU (not I) cobble up out of nowhere two statements which you characterise as contradictory and then ask ME to reconcile them. Am I missing something here?”

            OK, I’m going to try one more time, because it is now obvious that you are playing dumb.

            YOU said this: “But need the poisoners have been high-calibre? Perhaps they were, as you seem to be saying, low-calibre.”
            YOU said this: “The answer to your question is of course YES (the Kremlin or one of the dubious circles closely connected with the Kremlin acting with the Kremlin’s tacit consent”

            Those were YOUR words, not mine.

            Now, since is it YOU who claimed that this assassination attempt was ordered by the Kremlin and it is YOU who mused that these assassins appear to be being hopelessly inept at assassinating people then I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask how YOU propose to reconcile two contradictory propositions that YOU put forward.

            Because to me it seems obvious that *if* the Kremlin ordered this hit *then* the assassins that the GRU would send would be highly-trained professionals.

            And, likewise, it seems to me to be obvious that *if* the assassins are ill-trained hacks *then* this assassination attempt is unlikely to be the product of a professional outfit like the GRU acting with the full backing of the state.

            So, once again: what do YOU think? Can YOU square your own circle?

    • Stonky

      “May one assume that the various commenters have shared their insights and theories with the police and security services in order for the truth to be established? Surely the fruits of so much intellectual effort and sleuthing should not go to waste by being confined to the columns of this blog? Confirmation welcome.”

      Do you have to persist in behaving like a complete moron?

      • Tom Smythe

        Although a bit late on release of information, Met is in fact soliciting public input on their web page. It must be recognized that the police have much more information and much less disinformation (the cock-up of hotel swabs) than the blogging public. However they are on the receiving end of relentless political interference from above unlike people here.

        As someone noted earlier, it is not the nature of police work to conduct investigations transparently with near-real time release of information, as it can prejudice later prosecution. Thus the limited hangout yesterday was extraordinary but then no prosecution is envisioned.

        Looking at the specific requests, it seems Met is not clear on where all the two went in Salisbury and who all they met with. Met is very concerned about the perfume bottle gap in the narrative and the implication that additional embedded conspirators are still resident in Salisbury.

        We can be certain the trash hauler has explained the frequency of pickup of the two skips and the low likelihood that a perfume box could have been left despite many tips since March, not to mention frequent scavenging by Rowley and his colleagues: the perfume box must have been tossed in the very week that Rowley found it (Wed June 27th). Why was it retained so long, so ineptly disposed, and by whom?

        “In summary, I [Basu] am asking for the public’s help worldwide and I want to restate the following appeal points:

        Do you recognize the men from the CCTV or do you know them?

        Did you see them while they were in the UK and in particular during their time in Salisbury?

        Has anyone seen the bottle or box between the attack on the Skripals on Sunday, 4 March to when Charlie says he found it on Wednesday, 27 June? This is vital information.

        Anyone with information should contact the investigation team in confidence on 0800 789 321 or email [email protected].

        • Charles Bostock

          Thanks for that, Tom – I rather thought that the police would have put out an appeal for info from the public and I’m glad you’ve confirmed that.

          But, surely, should people who truly believe they have genuine info and insights to offer not get in touch with the authorities? I was merely wondering whether any of the myriad sleuths who’ve commented have actually done so and I must say I’m surprised that no one has yet confirmed that they’ve done so.

          • Borncynical

            With all due respect please get real, Charles. The Russians have raised all the matters we have debated here and posed all the obvious questions triggered by the UK’s ‘evidence’ along with other queries (e.g. seeking information on what France’s role was in confirming the substance used in Salisbury) but have been met with complete silence. Do you seriously and honestly think that the Government has any inclination to treat any approach from a home-grown ‘conspiracy theorist’ with credulity if they treat the Russians with such contempt?? The Govt has no incentive to listen to anyone disagreeing with their narrative and anyone who thinks otherwise is being incredibly blinkered. How do you explain the attempts to prevent formal public meetings such as the ‘Media on Trial’ seminar at the end of May when the first scheduled venue cancelled it as it was deemed ‘controversial’ simply because the speakers were daring to challenge the Government’s policy on Syria? We are living in a McCarthyist society. Just face it, nothing makes sense in this saga from beginning to end and the Government is more than happy for this to remain so, for whatever underhand reasons they may have.

        • Tom Smythe

          >>Why was perfume box retained so long, so ineptly disposed, and by whom?

          Retention: theories here revolve around a backup kit, failure of the first hit, holding out for a second hit, and abandonment of that as time went on. Met has not been able to establish that an aliquot from this perfume bottle was used in the first hit, nor that the liquid is from the same synthetic batch, nor that it had anything to do with the London hotel room.

          Disposal: perhaps it wasn’t inept but one of many salted around parks and dumpsters in the hopes of re-invigorating a fading story and associated Russia-bashing. This is why even today, Salisbury police are saying don’t pick anything up that you didn’t put down.

          Met is claiming fake goods here. However the applicator and box involve a complex manufacturing process, injection moulding, fittings and the like. I would say it was not made perps but rather simply a knock-off from Asia, with the original fragrance was poured off, the novi put in, and minor modifications made in the dispenser for its far greater viscosity.

          Met went out of its way not to disclose how much novi was in the bottle. The box says 5.5 ml (17 fluid ounces). That is a sh*t-load of any nerve agent. Note the pump has to extend below the fluid in order to work. It could perhaps be flush with the bottom of the bottle. However I wonder if one ml of fluid would be enough to keep the dispenser from just sucking air (the box says vaporisateur/spray so it may work partly as atomizer).

          Scaling up a lab process — and this was lab-grade, not military — is a huge deal in terms of staff safety, facility requirements, and purification steps. The Iranian publication on synthesis of the five main novi’s gives a sense of risk management. OPCW said the novi was undiluted by solvents (‘neat’ in chemical parlance) which deprecates theories proposing sticky additives or skin-penetrating adjuvants.

          A full 5.5 ml suggests state actor, not Russian mobsters buying another phial out of Leonid Rink’s garage to assassinate banksters.

          By whom: theories here include an embedded co-conspirator who perhaps enabled or choreographed the attack, a Porton Down rogue employee, or novi that has leaked out over the years into a MI5/6 stash. The last scenario fits the hotel room nonsense though the two positive swabs were more likely an outright fabrication. Whatever: 60 days sitting unsupervised, no chain of custody, people coming in and out, those swabs are inadmissible as evidence, any more than in a drug case. Met isn’t really seeking prosecution because they don’t have a case that we know of.

        • Mary Paul

          The role of the perfume bottle, where the two men (and the Skripals) went on the day and the possibility of a local sleeper agent, are all things which I had also identified as outstanding items of interest. Glad to see the Met Police is thinking along the same lines. 🙂

          • Mary Paul

            You cant buy Nina Ricci perfume in that sort of dispenser in the UK nor I think in Europe. Is is available in that form in the Far East?

          • Yeah, Right

            If sleepy old Salisbury is the location of a Russian sleeper agent then it’s a pretty safe bet that said agent answered to the name of “Skripal, Sergei”.

            Maybe those two Russians WERE couriers, and what they were doing was delivery something to Skripal, only this time the dottery old fool spilled the contents….

            Who knows?

            But, honestly, how many Russian spies – “sleeper” or “ex” or “courier” or otherwise – do you think can claimed to be in Salisbury before it gets a little ridiculous?

        • Agent Green

          But yet apparently you seem to enjoy wasting your time reading all of them.

          So you take time out of your day to read comments which are, according to you, not sensible and presumably pointless? Why bother?

          I’m sure you could find far better uses for your time than wasting it here.

    • N_

      @Charles – You’ve now unloaded your feelings of confirmatory contempt against people who try to think for themselves and who, generally speaking and unlike yourself, distrust the public authorities that exist to protect private wealth. Don’t worry – state security reads the comments section here. You love to think we’re all ephemeral unserious headbangers, not worth listening to, not worth the expensive time and resources of the authorities and the privately wealthy whom the authorities serve, don’t you? Your concept of a “typical” “conspiracy theorist” seems to function as a comfort blanket.

      • Charles Bostock

        I think that quite a fair assessment, N_, and thank you for responding.

        Just a small comment about what you say about people “trying to think for themselves”. I don’t think that’s a fair description of what impels most commenters. Rather, I believe that they start off with a few basic premises such as “never believe anything the authorities tell you”, “there is a global conspiracy organised by xxx to achieve yyy”, “everything is the fault of the West” and so on and then view and interpret every event which catches their attention in that light. And then once on that path, they obtain sustenance from others in the echo chamber and from other websites which put forward the same ideas and arguments. An essential part of that mental framework is of course to believe that anyone who disagrees is a stooge of the PTB, the establishment and so on.

        All that, I submit, is a far cry from “trying to think for yourself”.

        • SA

          “Rather, I believe that they start off with a few basic premises such as “never believe anything the authorities tell you”, “there is a global conspiracy organised by xxx to achieve yyy”, ”

          When we go through the last 60 years or so when we used to believe everything told to us, we found little by little that every time we made a mistake. For some of us this came during the Vietnam war. Since that time giving the benefit of the doubt we found every time that we gave the benefit of the doubt, we got disappointed. There was the arming of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in 1979 There was Iraq 1990, followed by 911 and its aftermath with a war that is still ongoing in and Iraq with its lies, followed by the continuous war on terror which is creating more terror, then Somalia, South Sudan, Libya and Syria (not comprehensive) and so on.. So really one feels like a true mug believing all this and starts to think for oneself, that is unless you choose to believe that ignorance is bliss.

        • Borncynical

          Charles, you know how to be very offensive and patronising to those of us who actually have, and cherish, the ability to be objective, analytical and capable of thinking for ourselves. Speaking personally my moment of enlightenment was immediately post-MH17. You may recall UK mainstream TV and newspapers were full of pictures – and video footage – of a Ukrainian ‘rebel’ “revelling in the deaths of children by holding aloft a child’s toy from the wreckage of MH17 as a mark of disrespect”. This apparently showed us what sort of people we were dealing with in Eastern Ukraine and was clearly evidence of their culpability. Well RT showed the full footage and you know what? The man had been keeping guard at the site and was confronted by a group of western journalists who asked him to pick up a nearby toy and hold it in the air so they could get a picture of it. After they took their pictures he lowered his arm, crossed himself and gently laid the toy back where he had picked it up from, bowing his head as a mark of respect. The mass media, as one voice, colluded in lying about events in the full knowledge of what they were doing. I have never believed anything I have read in the papers since. And it doesn’t take a great intellect to see the holes in the Government’s narratives on Skripal, Syria, White Helmets etc so,again, as with the MSM, experience teaches us to question and analyse everything before accepting it without question. And for reasons known only to themselves the Government and MSM speak with one voice.
          I too can be patronising – I can only conclude from your comments that you must be one of the unfortunates who are unable to think for themselves if you cannot see what motivates us ‘conspiracy theorists’.

          • Charles Bostock


            ” I have never believed anything I have read in the papers since. ”

            Thank you for illustrating my thoughts so well as well as making clear a contradiction.

            You take one example of mistaken/misleading reporting and, as Saul on the road to Damascus, resolve never to believe ANYTHING you read in the MSM EVER AGAIN.

            Apart from being perhaps just ever so slightly absolutist, is that statement not inconsistent with the “ability” which you claim for yourself “to be objective, analytical and capable of thinking for ourselves ” – an ability you should deploy when considering each event on its merits as and when it occurs, surely?

          • Borncynical

            Charles (10.32),
            “mistaken/misleading” reporting?? Continuing with the alliterative theme, I think “mendacious” is the word you were looking for.

    • Dungroanin

      The Met Police!
      Lol – worthless.
      Examples of their great investigations and honesty? – won’t hold my breath while you provide a list of their successes and failures.

      Here are a some to get you started:-
      Phone hacking;
      Paedophile rings;
      Terrorist funding;
      Harbouring of murderous foreign nationals;
      Institutional racism within their ranks – Stephen Lawrence investigation, Stoke Newington police station …
      Prob all the way back to failure to catch Kack the Ripper – as the proto Met earned their henchmen colours.


      The Met, Mod, FO nexus have always played by their own (the PTB) rules not applicable to the rest of us gullible citizenry.

      You CB are a mere grubby servant to them – the type that is needed to keep the sewers backing up!

      • Robyn

        Dungroanin – you might like to add to your list of Met failures the death of private investigator Daniel Morgan. I’ve just finished the book – Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder Exposed by Peter Jukes and Alastair Morgan. There is also an excellent podcast about it.

    • Yeah, Right

      CB: “May one assume that the various commenters have shared their insights and theories with the police and security services in order for the truth to be established?”

      A thought experiment: a guy walks up to you in a pub and spins the most preposterous story imaginable, and does so with a straight face and that air of absolute authority that only the most arrogant piss-artist possess.

      Do you:
      a) engage him in conversation that is sprinkled with “no, your story can’t be true because….” and “the more likely explanation is….”
      b) turn to your compatriots and say “what a load of bullshit” while doing that little “he’s crazy in the head” circle with your finger.

      Which one to choose…. which one to choose…. which one to choose….

      Charles, apparently, will always chose to earnestly discuss with a lying liar why it is that what they are saying can not be true.

      And me?

      I understand the pointlessness of trying to convince anyone to admit that they are a lying sack o’ shit.
      I’ll always chose to content myself by turning to those around me and saying “What a load of bullshit”.

      But, heh, that’s just me. Good for Charles for living up to his expectations of others.

      • pretzelattack

        i thought he was earnestly (?) trying to convince us that we should believe the lying liars, not our lying eyes.

        • Yeah, Right

          “i thought he was earnestly (?) trying to convince us that we should believe the lying liars, not our lying eyes.”

          No, Charles was attempting to convince us that if we don’t believe the lies being fed to us then we should be spending our time contacting the government and explaining that what they are saying is untrue.

          Or, as he says: “May one assume that the various commenters have shared their insights and theories with the police and security services in order for the truth to be established?”

          How you can read that and conclude that Charles is urging us to drop our own beliefs and simply accept the police version is…. well…. honestly…. words escape me.

          Up is down. Left is right. The sky is green and the grass is blue.
          Still, SA applauds your efforts, so you’ve got one fan.

          • SA

            Yeah Right
            I have no doubt of your intentions and agree with what you are trying to say, but the example you gave sounded very much in support of what Charlie was saying, ot is futile to argue even though he comes to it from a different perspective. No offence meant.

          • Yeah, Right

            “but the example you gave sounded very much in support of what Charlie was saying”

            The example I gave is perfectly apt.

            The people posting here are posting HERE because there is no point whatsoever in trying to draw the attention of those in authority to the flaws in the mainstream narrative, precisely because it is those very people who are promulgating these falsehoods.

            As it old saying goes: it is very difficult to convince someone of something when their job is dependent upon them not knowing.

            Charles is attempting to mock everyone here for not taking the issue up with Teresa May’s government or with the Met Police. I am pointing out – quite correctly – that doing so would be akin to accepting an invitation to reason with a compulsive liar.

            Doing so will never, ever elicit the truth from them, it will simply cause them to double-down on their lies.

            You shouldn’t do that. You should simply turn your back on those lying sons of bitches and explain to everyone else around you why those sons of bitches are lying.

      • BarrieJ

        The ability to publicly comment on newspaper articles, blogs and indeed other people’s opinions is a relatively recent innovation and in short time we’ve seen that opportunity much reduced, denied or harshly censored, so it’s good that the circumstances still exist here and only fair that Charles Bostock has an equal chance to participate.
        Judging by the almost universal contempt his comments are greeted with I wonder why he bothers, his views are most unlikely to change anybody’s opinion and at best only serve to distract but of course, maybe that’s the point.
        Based on his posting history I see nothing to be gained or learned from engaging and generally just scroll past, preferring contributions that genuinely have something interesting to say, whether I agree with them or not.

        • Borncynical

          Barrie, you are right but sometimes you just feel compelled to respond! I know it risks becoming a moebius loop but I don’t like him to think he’s had the final word.

          • Charles Bostock

            Surely it’s not about “having the last word”, is it? That would be a very primary school playground way of thinking, surely? Anyway, I think you over-estimate the importance of anyone’s views on here and their ability to persuade others to think outside the “official” box.

          • Borncynical

            Charles (10.53)
            I think you just proved my point! You clearly even feel the need to respond seriously to what was clearly (to most at least) a facetious remark.

        • Charles Bostock

          “Judging by the almost universal contempt his comments are greeted with I wonder why he bothers, his views are most unlikely to change anybody’s opinion and at best only serve to distract but of course, maybe that’s the point.”

          I suppose the same could be of quite a few people seen as heroes by commenters on this blog : Beeley and Bartlett, Jonathan Cook, Thierry Meyssan, “Professor” Michel Chudo whatever it is (he of the absurdly named “globalresearch” outfit) ……..
          Although I don’t cost anyone anything 🙂

      • Charles Bostock

        @ Yeah Right (1:34 pm)

        “A thought experiment: a guy walks up to you in a pub and spins the most preposterous story imaginable, and does so with a straight face and that air of absolute authority that only the most arrogant piss-artist possess.”

        Is that how you would characterise the authors of the various conspiracy theories we’re reading on this thread? If so, there is hope for you yet.

        • Yeah, Right

          “Is that how you would characterise the authors of the various conspiracy theories we’re reading on this thread?”

          No, that’s how I characterise Teresa May and all the other authority figures who are telling us absolute porkies, and doing so with a straight face.

          “a guy walks up to you in a pub” = Teresa May
          “the most preposterous story imaginable” = I know it was Putin who did it!!!!
          ” if you think that’s wrong why don’t you go over and reason with him?” = you
          “why would I waste time trying to reason with a compulsive liar?” = me.

          Hardly rocket science.

          ” If so, there is hope for you yet.”

          Well, you’ve deliberately played dumb regarding everything else I’ve tried to say to you, so I can understand your reluctance to spoil your perfect record.

  • Tony Papagallo

    UK Gov refuses to give their alleged fingerprints to the Russian authorities so they can be formally identified.
    Most certainly because they are both dead and their bodies eviscerated.

    Its very possible this was a combined operation between any number of UK/ Israeli/ Ukrainian security services and these two men were hired to be in a certain place at a certain time but circumstances prevailed upon the mission resulting in the unfortunate non deaths of the Skripals.

    The UK Government was certainly in possession of all this information including the names and details of these two unfortunate men but had to be sure they were dead and disposed of before ‘going public’ with this information.
    God forbid if they were suddenly to ‘be arrested’ and spill the beans it was all a set up.

  • Mr Hugh Pattrick

    The photos published at the time of the original incident was of a uniformed police sergeant whom it turned out was a Detective Sergeant. It is unlikely that such an officer was just passing by at the time. He must have been Special Branch keeping an eye on the pair. There was spme suggestion that they were still “active”.

  • George_Cardiff

    Time to accept that these two amateurs were sent by some imbecile in the GRU. No matter how improbable the story is, everything in the CCTV fits to show that these two men probably had a brief meeting with the Skripals or put the stuff on their door. The alternative theory is just too complicated (they had a more innocent meeting and somebody else poisoned the Skripals within a few minutes of that meeting, to incriminate the two innocent Russians). Perhaps the Skripals have recognised them and this is why they are kept away from the public.
    Why was this done at all, why was it done in such an amateur way, why Boshirov and Petrov look so unperturbed in that video and didn’t check that the job was done properly, remains a mystery. We still don’t know what happened, but it is now hard to find an alternative theory.

  • Radar O’Reilly

    As a child ‘oop North’ I used to pump-up my chopper bicycle tyres at a petrol station. It was owned by (as I recall) a gruff bearded Latvian, with no sense of humour. Thirty-four years later I discovered in a book that the whole garage was a bomb and that the Latvian was apparently a Soviet GRU sleeper agent. The petrol station was located next to very sensitive UK/USA critical network infrastructure. It was in place, ‘live’ as a weapon, for many years. I guess there will have been many of these weapons deployed. I presume when this compromise of UK security was discovered by the hard working UK intelligence that something prison-like or rendition-like happened to the GRU agent. It was *not* announced in Parliament by the HomeSec, FornSec or the PM, it was not on Look-North, it never appeared on even page 4 of The Sun.

    That is the real world of spy vs.spy. Chess. Silent moves, gaining a position of strength, losing a pawn. Continuous hard, careful strategy & secrecy – possibly noticed thirty years later by the neighbours, probably not. GRU = professionals, pwned UK security infrastructure 1960s to 1970s, MI5 = professionals unpwned it, I’m not sure when.

    The Skripal affair is all political PR, public relations manipulations, a sort of “Saatchi” parody of spy vs. spy. A tragi-comedy that we will hopefully know the full context of in the next thirty years. We do remain in a full-blown ‘information-war’ and citizens are the casualties, but luckily this PR has failed, it remains a nothing-burger in EU news this morning. Have a great weekend.

    • Jo

      But sadly ….perhaps terrifyingly…..UK is determined to escalate this in partnership with others… what extreme…for example….GCHQ saying it is going to use everything it can against Rusia….it ‘int over yet.

      • SA

        Do you seriously believe that GCHQ is not already ‘using everything it can’? It is just virtue signalling to say how modest we are and do not use any of these devious means.

    • Tom Welsh

      “Thirty-four years later I discovered in a book that the whole garage was a bomb and that the Latvian was apparently a Soviet GRU sleeper agent”.

      Could you please name the book, so that we can learn from it? Otherwise, “I read such and such in a book” is almost as unconvincing as a formal statement by the PM in the House of Commons.

      • Radar O’Reilly

        Hi Tom,

        I’m pretty sure that it was AMZN ASIN 0141044691, “The Secret State: Preparing For The Worst 1945 – 2010” by Peter Hennessy , history professor at Queen Mary’s College, London.

        I didn’t just take the book claim as verité, I also asked a friend. There was no trial that I was aware of, the garage is now a hairdressers salon.

        I’ll check which page (and confirm it wasn’t something similar by Peter Laurie) when I clock-off soon. HTH

        On the subject of rooms filled with valves, post-Soviet invasion plans for Великобритания were to arrest all radio enthusiasts, day one! (allegedly)

    • Mary Paul

      Thats interesting. My old dad worked for the Royal Aircraft Research Establishment as an electrical/electronics engineer, on radar, satellite and electronic communications. He worked on secret projects towards the end of his career and had a garden shed stuffed full of valves, transformers and similar stuff. My mother had it all carted off to the dump the morning he died….

  • Mr Sting

    The police have produced two mugshots/ passport style photos of the two suspects, they are all over the internet and news. Where did the police get these mugshots? How could they be in possession of them, if they don’t know who the men are? Did they arrest them and then let them go?

      • BarrieJ

        It’s understandable that the police would have their photographs from their visa applications, they and the purpose of their visit here: business has been released to the newspapers, yet their ages are routinely being given as ‘forty something’. Surely the visa applications would have their date of births?

  • Sharp Ears

    Recommend the latest episode of SophieCo in which she interviews Roger Waters. I have just watched it on Ch 234 Freeview. Repeated at 14.30 today. He discusses his music, the WH fraud and Douma, moves on to BDS, the demonization of Russia in the Western MSM and more. He is a very engaging man and a sentient and knowledgeable person as well as being supreme in the music world.

    Roger Waters: White Helmets is a deep rabbit hole

    There is even a transcript below the video. Take note BBC. They don’t even a running order for Radio 4 Today now.

  • mike

    It’s wall-to-wall now – Bliar’s latest mindburp is the state broadcaster’s top story today. If it ain’t evil Russia it’s evil Corbyn that’s being hammered relentlessly into the public consciousness. Meanwhile, the worst PM in living memory gets a free pass. The Libya/Manchester alone should have been enough to topple the Tories, but as there are no journalists left any more that very obvious link is ignored.

    • MaryPaul

      Baffled by the MSM continuing to give credence to Blair’s views. Everyone in the UK, apart from his immediate circle, hates him and regards him as a liar – left right all of us.

      • Resident Dissident

        Are you sure – opinion polls make Blair the second most popular PM in recent times, with Thatcher the most popular. Anyone who comes here to understand the views of the general public is really living in cloud cuckoo land.

          • Resident Dissident

            In general yes – especially compared with the present shambles. I appreciate you cannot understand more nuanced views.

          • Charles Bostock

            @ Node

            Overall, yes. It’s always a mistake – and a sign of lazy and/or obsessional thinking – to define mainstream democratic politicians by any single act or policy of theirs.

            I say “democratic” because people like Stalin or Hitler obviously can be so defined because all their acts and policies represent a single over-arching (and inhuman) whole.

          • Node

            @Resident Dissident

            Thank you for answering my questions. Just one more if you would be so good.

            Do YOU believe that Jeremy Corbyn is antise*itic?

          • Blunderbuss

            Why do people say anti-Semitism when they mean anti-Judaism? Arabs are Semites as well but they don’t get a mention in the IHRA definition.

          • Node

            That’s interesting – you allow the possibility that the accusations are not true, which implies that the mainstream media are conducting a witch hunt against Corbyn, which implies …. well let’s leave it there ….

          • Tom Welsh

            Blunderbuss, the choice of “anti-semitism” is very carefully thought out and highly effective. It makes the alleged behaviour sound “racist”, as if being Jewish were exclusively a genetic matter. Whereas of course it is a beautifully designed blur of genes, culture, religion and opinions.

          • SA

            That is a very good summary but this also explains the recent attempt to include not only a country buta state and a ruling government into the definition, hence the resistance to adoption of the full IHRA code with examples.

      • Vivian O'Blivion

        20 year veteran of BBC journalism Iain MacWhirter on Twitter this morning offering an an explanation. BBC producers live in a “bubble of group think” … “Their journalism is a social thing -about people they’d invite for dinner.”

        MacWhirter still extracts a reasonable whack from the Beeb as a self employed political commentator. Sounds like he isn’t much bothered about potentially loosing the gig. All plaudits to Mr MacWhirter!

    • Dungroanin

      The problem these demented, unimaginative, guards, gate keepers and damage limiters have, is their militaristic tendency of following orders and nothing else. That is how the PTB can trust them not to rebel and bite the hand that feeds them.

      The Media and the paid trolls here are only following orders – as the future trials will show.
      They may even end up hanging, if they carry on this path of mass murder.

      Holding breath today, over the well forseen FF in Idlib run by the UK state goons, it is in the hands of the Turks – they have to decide if they want to be mullered by NATO or stand up to them.

  • Yonatan

    The ‘novichok on the doorknob’ hypothesis, with its ever expanding complexity of iinconsistencies, is a post-facto falsehood of the UK government to explain how the policeman became poisoned, even though first responders on the scene were not. It is claimed he went to the Skripal’s home shortly after the event (reason not specified) and then came down with symptoms early Monday am when he drove in his police car to Salisbury hospital A&E which was then locked down for decontamination.

    How he came to be poisoned is a key part of the process. He needs to be questioned very thoroughly but of course he has disappeared to avoid being ‘pestered by the media’.

    • Tone worrall

      I agree the policeman could be key to the story here.

      I seem to remember seeing photos that his car ( and his wife’s) was lifted from his house not the hospital and maybe one of those now in landfill. There was a huge clean up at his house about a week after the attack. He was at the scene for some reason so why? Why on Earth would he need to go to the Skirpals home when they were found in a collapsed condition. Surely staying with them would have been a duty by a policeman not to go dashing off! I have read some reports stating several other officers went directly to the house to search for drugs etc but how come they were not also affected. What happened to them? When was that order given? I’m sure I read he was off duty that night so how come he was part of the search team (assuming the search took place the same night). Does a police team routinely and immediately search the house of a victim suspected of poisoning? There seems to be more to it.

      A Police Chief said officers attending the Skripals wore body cameras. Can we see that footage please? Did Bailey wear a camera? I think it’s more likely he was poisoned around the same time as the Skripals on the bench after their meeting with whoever (One report said he tried to resuscitate them). This would be more logical. He was affected by the same non lethal weapon (obviously not deadly as they would all be dead) and recovered as did the Skripals.

      He may be hero, I don’t know but I think their are questions. He asked for people to respect his privacy so that probably means he won’t talk about this most important matter. The £430,000 we are paying him for his house (?) will come in handy though. Asking the police wouldn’t help as they love him!

      • LondonBob

        Annie Machon thought the policeman might have been observing Skripal. That would be consistent with my theory he was seen as a flight risk back to Russia and thus would have been watched.

    • Yeah, Right

      I have always believed that the policeman is the key, because it is his exposure to that agent which has forced the goverment to resort to pretzel-logic to explain it away.

      My suspicion – and it’s no more than that – is that Bailey was watching / tailing / bodyguarding / whatevering Sergei Skripal, and then intervened when the Skripal’s fell sick. That’s why
      (a) nothing was found on that bench and
      (b) Bailey became ill.

      But acknowledging that role would cause the story to unravel (why would the police be tailing an old, harmless pensioner?) so convoluted nonsense about doorknobs has to be conjured up.

      • Yonatan

        “But acknowledging that role would cause the story to unravel”

        Precisely. He need not have an active role, but his mere presence would destroy the whole thing given they have concocted a totally ludicrous story to explain how he was poisoned yet first responders were not.

        Assuming the discarded perfume spray was the real weapon, the simplest explanation would be a female approached the Skripals seated on the bench and uses the spray on them. This possibly could be done without pausing or stopping if the attack was practiced beforehand. The would be no CCTV coverage (known defective camera system – see Salisbury local press). Female then moves off discarding the spray well away from the site of the attack.

        No complexity, unknown assassin does the deed and leaves without trace, a typical well planned and
        practiced state security hit.

    • Tom Welsh

      “He needs to be questioned very thoroughly but of course he has disappeared to avoid being ‘pestered by the media’”.

      Exactly. He needs to be questioned very thoroughly in open court, as part of a criminal trial.

  • Sharp Ears

    A case in point. Salisbury.

    Who said this:
    ‘Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.’

    Hermann Göring in an interview with Gilbert in Göring’s jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946).öring

    • MaryPaul

      Well it’s not working at present is it, as noone in the UK public, left or right, believes the official Salisbury narrative. Spare a thought for the innocent citizens of Salisbury caught up in all this.

      • Resident Dissident

        Of course the Putin regime never ever makes any resort to nationalism and the narrative in Pravda is as reliable as ever.

        • laguerre

          What has that got to do with it? It’s Britain that’s making the claims here, not Russia.

          • Resident Dissident

            I think you will find that the Putin regime is making lots of claims as well. Countries do not make claims.

          • pretzelattack

            the putin administration is claiming there isn’t any good evidence. the brits are not providing any evidence to back up their claims, thus making the putin claim more credible.

        • Republicofscotland

          On the contrary, Putin’s remained in power for so long because he has an iron grip on the country. He’s certainly not above corruption, and his popularity rating took a big hit over pension age hikes recently.

          Russia’s tv channels like Britain’s are mainly propaganda machines when it comes to news and foreign affairs.

          However all being said, this particular affair doesnt stack up, and it reeks of inconsistencies.

          • Borncynical

            Yes but let’s face it, our Govts over the years haven’t covered themselves in glory over pensions and it’s still going on. With regard to “He’s certainly not above corruption”, perhaps you might care to elaborate on that statement with some hard evidence? I have provided a link to an interesting article by Sharon Tennison which you may like to read.

            Out of interest, have you ever watched RT? When I lived in Devon it was RT who enlightened me about corruption with regard to windfarms sprouting up in Devon on one of their excellent half hour documentary programmes. Also surrogate mothers in India being exploited by westerners. Also persecution, maiming and sacrificing of albinos in Tanzania. Also cancer-causing US burn pits in Iraq. Also conservation of pandas in China. Also pollution of the environment by Monsanto in the US. Also the endeavours of a US engineer to become a cosmonaut on the space programme. Also the recruitment process for youngsters hoping to get into the Bolshoi Ballet school. Etc etc. Superb programmes. Their current affairs and news programmes have intelligent and analytical UK, US and South African newsreaders, presenters and reporters alongside Russians and Ukrainians. I have never seen evidence of propaganda being promoted but perhaps you might care to give me examples if you know otherwise. From my experience, if you choose not to watch RT it is your loss.

      • N_

        What has the British government’s intended message been to the British population? I put it that way because I don’t think for most of that target market it involves getting them to believe a detailed narrative.

        We can’t determine the answer to this question definitively (that’s often how it is with psychological warfare), but I think a large part of the answer comes down to 1) “the Russian government has a capability to do dirty stuff in Britain” and 2) “the Russian government has a chemical weapons capability and lies about it”. 1) and 2) are of course connected.

        And I think that message has been successful. I’d be interested to hear your view. I hope I’ve put the question in a way that you think is unbiased.

        I agree with @JMF and what he says about the big picture.

        Britgov plans a huge increase in military spending, and the elite are planning to have a great, highly enjoyable, self-fulfilling and lucrative time in WW3.

        • Tom Welsh

          It is truly staggering what brass necks those people have. They have the gall to accuse Russia of massive aggression against the UK on the basis of (utterly unfounded) claims that Russia killed one person and harmed three or four others.

          Meanwhile they themselves attack other nations, showing contempt for international law, the UN Charter and the Nuermberg Principles, overthrow governments – leaving chaos and anarchy, the worst of political conditions – and killing literally millions of civilians.

          Yet it is the Russians who are the bad guys.

  • Rob Royston

    Going back to the Gatwick gate pictures, I notice on the Google images that the four gates are staggered so that two men walking together and taking a gate each would be about two seconds out of synch if the gates used were adjacent and an extra two seconds if they were two gates appart. The chances of being at the cameras at the exact same time would be a long shot indeed.
    I imagine the date stamps are put in as a Psy-Op. Someone will have made a pie-chart already showing how many believe and disbelieve their story. They will add resources to the brainwashing msn if too many are asking questions.

    • Resident Dissident

      Hardly a Psy-Op – I suspect any sensible authority will not make every jot of evidence available – your friends in the Russian regime have made bugger all available.

        • Resident Dissident

          In general yes – but I suspect some of the details may not be entirely accurate since 1) there are good reasons why they should not be 2) we are dealing with humans who in many cases are subject to error and biases, particularly since some of them are politician/not that smart. I appreciate that may not be black and white enough for you – but that is your problem not mine.

          • N_

            Unfortunately people’s belief in propaganda (or “official narrative” as some of you like to call it) tends to become a social problem and not just a personal problem for each of the believers.

      • Republicofscotland

        I should add that from press reports, it would appear Russia has been excluded from the investigation. So one wonders why would they offer up anything.

      • Borncynical

        Please enlighten us as to precisely what ‘evidence’ you expect the Russian GOVERNMENT to have put forward. Surely all available ‘evidence’ is in the UK. The Russians cannot be expected to provide evidence of a ‘negative’ i.e. that they were NOT responsible for the events. They have offered their assistance to the UK investigators but that offer has been refused point blank. I note that at the UNSC yesterday Pierce for the UK pronounced in her sanctimonious way that the UK always treats the ‘accused’ as innocent until proven guilty, but when challenged by Nebenzia to explain why the Russian offers of assistance at the outset were refused, she replied “well you don’t ask an arsonist to help to investigate a fire and certainly not a fire that they started.” Strikes me there is more than a little inconsistency in her proclamations there.

        • Yeah, Right

          Nobody is disputing that these two dudes flew from Moscow and then back to Moscow, so IF you assume the Russian hovt is blameless THEN you can conclude that the Russians can be of assistance.

          Maybe they can trace these two dudes catching the next available flight to Tel Aviv.

          Or identify them as hit men for the Russian Mafia.

          Or provide a link between these two and some of Victoria Nuland’s favorite Ukranian neo-nazis.

          Who knows?

          But the UK is not going to know if they don’t ask. Why would it hurt for UK authorities to ask for assistance?

          Heck, even Pompeo has asked (well, demanded) the Syrians to give the USA all their info on jihadists.

          • Borncynical

            “Nobody is disputing that these two dudes flew from Moscow and then back to Moscow” ?? Really? Well I’m in agreement with Tom on this one. We can’t say categorically ‘No they didn’t’ but we can ask to see the proof of that. I will believe nothing and expect the Russians, likewise, to believe nothing that the UK Govt says until the latter provides evidence. I have made the point on another website that there is a daily flight scheduled to come into Gatwick from Kiev at about the same time, give or take, as the Moscow flight. Do we really know that these men didn’t come in on that flight but it suits the Govt’s narrative to say they came from Moscow? The Ukrainian authorities aren’t going to dispute it. As I’ve said before, we could be asking the Russians to look for a non-existent needle in a haystack, unless we share more genuine factual information with them. If Aeroflot say they didn’t have passengers with the false (?) names on their passenger manifest in dispute of the UK narrative – and again we have no information of the extent to which details have actually been verified and Neil Basu doesn’t seem to be of the opinion that there is as much information as the Government is claiming – we know from comments already voiced on this website that the reaction over here would be “well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” so it’s a no win situation for the Russians at every turn. But I’m sure the Russians will be pursuing their own enquiries in Russia…they really aren’t as stupid as people seem to think.

      • pretzelattack

        what evidence do you think they have about what happened in britain? talk about false equivalence…

        • Yeah, Right

          “what evidence do you think they have about what happened in britain?”

          Well, accusations have now been made about two men who are claimed to be GRU agents who were acting on the highest authority of the Kremlin.

          If the Russian government has nothing to do with this affair then they can produce evidence that those two men are unaffiliated with the Russian Government. Even better if they can produce evidence that these two men owe their allegiance elsewhere.

          • Borncynical

            @Yeah Right
            “If the Russian government has nothing to do with this affair then they can produce evidence that those two men are unaffiliated with the Russian Government”. So how exactly do they do that based on two grainy photographs and allegedly false identities, even moreso without people saying that they’re lying?
            “Even better if they can produce evidence that these two men owe their allegiance elsewhere”. So how exactly do they do that, if – for the sake of argument – these men are non-Russian Eastern European, or US or Israeli or UK (the hypothetical list goes on) operatives?
            You seem to be accepting without question Mrs May’s declarations that these men ARE Russian and did enter the UK on a flight from Moscow – as opposed to on the flight from Kiev that (admittedly, based on current flight schedules) would have been scheduled to arrive at about the same time as the Moscow flight and no doubt flights from elsewhere in Europe.
            Wouldn’t it be a better start point and more constructive to suggest that HMG shares all the ‘evidence’ it has with the Russians?

          • Yeah, Right

            “You seem to be accepting without question Mrs May’s declarations that these men ARE Russian and did enter the UK on a flight from Moscow”

            No, quite the opposite. I find the accusation that these two are part of a professional GRU hit squad acting under the highest authority in the Kremlin to be laughable, considering both how amateurish they appear to be, and how unsuccessful the attempt has been.

            To your specific questions:
            If these aren’t Russians then the Russian authorities can try to find out who they really are. After all, foreigners travelling under a fake Russian passport is a crime, and if the Russians are nothing else they do have an well-deserved reputation for the penetration of foreign security services.

            If they are Russians who are not acting with the full authority of the Kremlin then the Russian authorities can be even more aggressive in finding them. After all, nothing would please Lavrov more than to hold those two up in a press conference and present irrefutable proof that they are long-time associates of some very unsavoury London-based Russian Oligarchs.

    • J Galt

      Or maybe they’re just having a laugh.

      They know the politicians and media people have to pretend to believe this shit no matter how crazy – so let’s have a bit of fun with the rest!

    • N_

      Sure, one of the reasons for the publication of those images was probably that they had the same time-stamp, which we know got noticed and spoken about by the Russian foreign ministry.

      But Britgov have got loads of footage to choose from. There probably wasn’t a need to fake the time-stamps. What stills to put out would have been carefully considered. It may have been similar to when advertisers present their pitches and the client considers a short list. “Which stills shall we run?” Then several sets are considered and discussed, and their benefits and risks in various markets, the influences that might be effected, the information that might be learnt from watching the barium go through various markets, how RT will respond, maybe throw the conspiretards something, etc. etc. – all of these are given consideration. That’s par for the course in psychological warfare.

    • corkie

      That’s the south terminal. The north terminal has three identical gates exactly in line that the lads could have goose stepped through together.,-0.1773495,2a,75y,177.98h,85.79t,0.58r/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skrDKt_hDawNNL1vh1ILPPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i42?hl=en
      There are some better mysteries about theses two. What were thy doing on their last visit? Why won’t the UK give mother Russia the fingerprint data? Seems to me that the UK authorities want to make damn sure their dodgy “evidence” is never tested in a real court room. Heaven forbid that the Russians ever find these two and send them back to Blighty to face the music.

      • Borncynical

        “Heaven forbid….” Wouldn’t you just love it if that happened? I know I would.

    • Elisabeth Bullying-Manners

      It’s definitely not an Ekco, nor a Hacker, but it might be a Pye, or possibly a Bush.

      • Charles Bostock

        Not to mention an Eddystone (NB not the lighthouse)!

        By the way, did you know that the surname “Bullying-Manners” was first used to describe her father Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, the one-time Conservative Attorney General (or was it Solicitor General)?

  • Clydebuilt

    Karen Bradley suspends Further Elections for N. I. Devolved Parliament

    The N.I. Secretary of State has banned elections to Stormont, for the forseeable future due to the political instability caused by Brexit.

    This was the main topic on last nights Newsnight. A Google search on this produces no results. However BBC2’s Newsnight have posted it on YouTube

    I didn’t hear any mention of this on BBC Radio Scotland

    Easy to see this being applied to Holyrood.

    • N_

      It won’t be applied at Holyrood, which runs on (ho hum) the “Westminster system”, not on power-sharing. The most that would be likely in this direction would be a long-lasting caretaker government.

    • lysias

      I guess they don’t want inconvenient election results, like majority support for union with the Republic of Ireland.

  • Doodlebug

    This I think is the real problem:

    Whatever the Met. might tell the public about any investigation, there is always going to be something they don’t. Why, when examining the Rowley residence in Amesbury should attention have been paid to some discarded toiletries packaging noticed in a litter bin and its contents perched elsewhere? Unless perhaps they had some idea of what they were looking for.

    I stand to be corrected but I don’t think we know of absolutely everything removed from the Salisbury site. The police are clearly very aware of the influx of opioids from China (see link) and would therefore be equally cognizant of what it typically looks like on arrival, i.e how it might be packaged. There are two things inter alia that Chinese are very good at – fake product packaging and false customs declarations. I should not be at all surprised if a rogue bottle or two of ‘Nina Ricci’ were to have come from the Orient.

  • Alasdair Macdonald.

    Thank you for this. You have done what any competent defence lawyer would do in posing plausible questions about various aspects of the statements from the PM and from the police.

    • Anthony

      Or any journalist worthy of the name. Sadly the ones we have are mere government stenographers.

  • Iain

    what a deadly poison! only effective in one out of four cases,, and didn’t bother the police, or ambulance services, or the waiters in the café that they allegedly ate in, plus it has never been proven that russia was the souce of the poison, only that Theresa May said that it was something taken in conjunction with what she knew about russians they were likely to have done? A previous expert said that it was probably worked on in any of the old soviet block countries and even made up by any country outside the soviets
    for some reason our government hates russia, which proved a better ally in the last war than the americans

    • Igor M.

      *Five cases- recall the DS (or DC I can’t remember now) who just happened to be there also got ill!

    • Ros Thorpe

      Strikes me that when Dawn sprayed it on both wrists, all occupants of the flat should have died instantly.

      • Ken Kenn

        What does strike me is that Charlie attempted to put the bottle and sprayer together – got it all over his hands
        which felt oily and didn’t notice that it didn’t have the smell of perfume.

        So why give a bottle of oily non stinking perfume to his girlfriend?

        Just as an aside – how often do charity shops empty their donor bins?

        Second question – would highly trained assassins bung a highly deadly nerve agent in a charity bin where it definitely would be found or just lob it into a bin near the benches to be carried away to the local tip – never to be seen again?

        Third point for the doorknob v handle debaters.

        The front door is a Upvc Storm Porch door. It has a lever handle. If you want to lock it you have to grip the handle and lift it up ( usually to the left) put the key in and turn the lock. If you don’t do that you cannot lock the door.

        Unless Mr Skripal is a trusting soul this is what you would do in a biggish town – it’s not the Isle of Skye.

        In order for Yulia to get a similar dose she would have had to ask her dad to give her a go at doing the same thing with the door.

        Apparently the Upvc door is helping police ( and the OPCW ) with their enquiries.

        By the way – I wouldn’t burn the door if I were them as the smoke from Upvc is extremely toxic. Not Novichock toxic but enough to kill you if you inhale the smoke in less than one minute.

        • Ros Thorpe

          Inexplicable as with many other aspects of this case. Wouldn’t the authorities be better off putting nothing out there instead of half baked incoherent narratives. It seems the assassins arrived after the Skripals left the house too so now we need to be told they returned home and went back out again. The statements are fuelling skepticism and conspiracy theories.

    • Tom Welsh

      And a trace of it, left (by some inexplicable mechanism) in a hotel room for six months, did no harm to all the guests who stayed in that room or the maids who cleaned it.

      Yet the government’s wonderful forensic experts immediately found that trace, and (although it was too little to harm anyone) identified it as the same poison.

      If you ever wondered what the real purpose of NCIS and CSI is, now you know. Millions of people will unhesitatingly believe the government story, because their impressions of forensic science ar based on those ludicrous science-fiction programmes.

      • Igor M.

        Together with the general dumbing down of the people by lowering education thresholds and steadily decimating science education…

        • BarrieJ

          I’d wholeheartedly agree with you, it’s impossible to believe that the dumbing down of education is anything other than intended policy.
          What is missing from all levels of education is critical thinking, believe nothing you’re told and question everything.

      • Ros Thorpe

        I don’t know a lot of very intelligent people but I can’t find anyone who believes the official line. It has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and Charlie Rowley is not in the least credible in his story or his persona. Unfortunately his girlfriend can’t clarify or confirm his story.

      • Vivian O'Blivion

        I’m not allowed watch CSI or NCSI, ’cause having a scientific background I shout at the telly and point out the brain damaging impossibilities. Not that I can say that not watching them is in any way denying pleasure. Also, doesn’t NCSI have an Is***li character in it? After the USS Liberty and assorted spying scandals the American navy must fucking hate the Is***lis.
        David Simon has an essay in his book “Homicide; a year on the killing streets” in which he highlights research findings that due to the expectations raised by TV, it is problematic identifying dependable jurors. The big Court room TV show at the time was LA Law. That was decades before CSI. Imagine the extent of the problem now.

        • Tom Welsh

          I don’t exactly have a scientific background, but I understand and respect the scientific method. I occasionally watch CSI and NCIS (1) to keep my wife company – although she does often fall asleep, and (2) because with a little effort one can actually laugh (out loud or intenally as appropriate) at the absurdities.

          I am somewhat conversant with computers and software, and I simply love the way they feed some evidence sample into a scoop or aperture, and immediately a computer voice starts explaining what happened and why. Such fun!

  • Jones

    the release of the video of Boshirov and Petrov windowshopping is curious, surely the police would have known about this video prior to it being shown, it seems the video was released by mailonline not police, which begs the questions why did the police not release it first and are they withholding more videos/CCTV.

    • Blunderbuss

      How did the mailonline get hold of the video? Perhaps B & P have sold their story to the mailonline.

    • N_

      As I said, a tip: never mess with a stamp dealer.

      What do you make of Boshirov and Petrov’s movements in that clip? And what do you make of the movements of the third person who is looking in the window?

      The police will certainly have a lot more video footage, and you are quite right that the authorities must have released this clip for a purpose, and they must also have done it NOW for a purpose.

      • Ros Thorpe

        Petrov moves backwards at the same time the third person moves away from him. Petrov is facing away from the third person so can’t see him move. The synchronicity suggests they know each other or it’s staged. Perhaps something is being exchanged

      • Jones

        ”What do you make of Boshirov and Petrov’s movements in that clip? And what do you make of the movements of the third person who is looking in the window?”

        when Boshirov & Petrov stop third guy turns away and takes two steps away from them then raises his hand to cover his mouth, when third guy walks off Boshirov glances to his right as if he is taking a look at the third guy. Windows are great for seeing people by reflection without having to look directly at them !!, i don’t think they were windowshopping at all, not all three of them.

        • Ros Thorpe

          It’s unlikely that this shop would hold much interest for a couple of assassins but a couple of patsies could be told where to stop and linger to ensure there is excellent footage of them.

  • JMF

    Don’t get bogged down with all these silly details. LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE!

    Trump Does 180 Shift On Syria: Regime Change Back On The Table

    Chapter1: Skripal CW false flag -> Douma CW false flag -> Missiles (attempt at regime change with palace targeted)
    Chapter 2: Skripal CW false flag -> Idlib CW false flag (Pending) -> Missiles (Pending)
    Chapter 3: …

    • Tom Welsh

      True, but nobody gives an airborne act of sexual congress for what Trump says – let alone thinks (if he does).

      The machine grinds on regardless. It’s actually very much like a Terminator. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop… ever, until all its targets are dead.

      In the course of its mission a Terminator may see fit to smile, make small talk, bargain, make promises, or even appear friendly. But it’s all in the pursuit of its one goal.

  • Lily Steinmetz

    As someone has pointed out in this thread, there is a “General Debate on the Salisbury Incident” in Parliament on Wednesday 12th September. Much huffing and puffing about Russia and chemical weapons no doubt.

    So I wonder what will be happening in Idlib, Syria, on, say, the 11th.

    The likely fate of those 44 children (see does not bear thinking about.

    • Agent Green

      The pathetic, insane ramblings of the US and Western nations concerning Syria are beyond a joke now.

      So Assad has won the war, has the full backing of Russian air and naval power, troops from Iran, financial support from China and yet at this moment he decides to launch a chemical attack which he knows will incite trouble from the lunatics in the asylum which is the US and its vassal states?

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      The propaganda push is being fronted by Mike Pompeo’s new special adviser Jim Jeffrey. Jeffrey was hired from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. WINEP was set up by Martin Indyk, Deputy director for research at AIPAC. No further background digging required.

      Jeffrey is “very sure” that there are “very, very good grounds”. In the absence of evidence go for hyperbole, it’s the Trump way.

      • Agent Green

        ‘Very sure’ and ‘very good grounds’ sounds similar to the language used by the UK cretins re. Skripal.

      • Tom Welsh

        ‘Jeffrey is “very sure” that there are “very, very good grounds”’.

        He should get with the programme. The approved term is “highly likely”.

    • Tom Welsh

      Yes, Syria is definitely preparing a chemical attack. That’s obvious from the known facts: large amounts of precursor chemicals were trucked in to the terrorist-held area of Idlib from Turkey and handed over to known terrorist leaders (in the presence of White Helmet leaders).

      Unmistakably that is irrefutable proof of Assad’s guilt.

  • Sharp Ears

    Don’t know why you are all wasting your time in speculating on who, what. where. when.

    The WHOLE of it, from beginning to end, is a theatrical produced by the UK state in order to demonize Russia. Please stop.

  • MJ

    The Skripal affair coincided with the imminent liberation of E Ghouta. The Amesbury business coincided with the World Cup. The latest nonsense coincides with the imminent liberation of Idlib. Seems old Quincey Dunce has been up to his tricks again.

  • Yonatan

    OT: A general query about the comment section on this blog. I noticed that some comments do not have a ‘reply’ button in the top right corner of their posting. Is this a bug or a feature?

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Yonatan September 7, 2018 at 12:52
      A way out of this is to copy the details of the commenter you wish to respond to (as I have to you here), then look for the first comment above the one you want to comment on that has a reply box, hit ‘reply’, and put the commenter’s details in at top with @ before it.

    • Rob Royston

      Hi Yonatin, there are a few blogs that operate like this. Purely based on observation it works something like this,
      When you make a comment to the blog your comment is placed at the left margin.
      Every reply to your comment is placed below and inset to show that it is relevant to your comment.
      Every reply to each reply is placed below and inset to show it is relevant to the reply it appends.
      If you see a reply below other replies you scroll up until you come to a reply or comment that is closer to the left margin. This is the comment being addressed.
      There is a limit to how far replies drift from the original comment, three or four here I think, and then no reply button is offered. Doing what Paul suggests is probably the best way to answer. If you work out who the reply you want to address was made to, click on it’s reply button and your comment will appear below the person you are addressing, although other comments maybe listed as well, hence Paul’s suggestion.

    • Node

      Is this a bug or a feature?

      It’s a feature. You can reply to a reply of a reply of a reply of a comment, but no deeper. If there were no limit, the replies would be increasingly indented until there was no room for text.

  • Norfolk Eagle

    The chemical brothers tour of Salisbury, a recap.
    Saturday 3rd our intrepid assassins do a recce. We don’t know when they arrived or where they went, good spycraft there but we do know when they left as they conveniently posed for a picture at Salisbury station.
    Sunday 4th, the big day. We have a picture of them arriving and then, really fortuitously, a date stamped picture outside the petrol station on Wilton Road. (personally I think the shadows are not right). Maybe the spycraft on the recce wasn’t so good. To get this far they managed to avoid the cctv camera at the juction of S. Western Road and Fisherton Street, just down from the station and the camera on St Pauls roundabout. They should have used Google maps, this would have directed them via the A360 and not Wilton Road.
    A quick bit of daubing/spraying of the most deadly nerve agent known to man and they were off. Back to the station, of course not. Lets go sightseeing in Salisbury. A very quick 30min hike into the town centre passed all the cameras mentioned and probably a few more and they are next seen on their way back to the station on the bridge at 13.05pm. Except there are doubts on this photo too.
    Time for a bit of window shopping at the coin shop, probably the only shop in Fisherton Street with cctv, these guys are really unlucky. Why did the Daily Mail not ask about the time stamp and how did they get the footage so quickly?
    They then hang around for 40minutes, coincidentally on the street corner Sergei will pass on his way to the carpark. Then back to the station and away, of course carefully missing the camera pointing up S. Western Road.
    What pisses me off is that this account takes at face value the information we have been given. The Police have had 6 months to get this together and this is the best they can come up with?

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Now the authorities are giving us the run around about how the Coopers died in Egypt. They say that the hotel suffers from high levels of the bacteria E-coli rather than autopsy results.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      No interest in the likelihood of the false flag Mossas being out of control when the makers of the first incident don’t realize that the looney Brits are going ahead with the first one.

  • rob

    interesting, in her “speech” may said that “the government had concluded this was the russians”, not that the police, cps or intelligence services had, the government. and yet, when asked why the Russians might have sanctioned this, she said it wasn’t the government place to decide that. all under PP of course!

    • Tom Welsh

      Of course HMG concluded it was the Russians.

      They were given orders to conclude that. Jawohl, Mein Herr! How high?

1 5 6 7 8 9 19

Comments are closed.