Jeremy Bamber Forum

OFF TOPIC => Off Topic => Topic started by: Roch on April 12, 2018, 02:06:PM

Title: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 12, 2018, 02:06:PM
This headline is just pure propaganda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43741140

Sometimes i wonder whether the Saville thing opened up a can of worms.. and the people running the BBC are personally compromised.  The standard of reporting, balance and neutrality are woeful.

Edit 17.45 - they've changed the headline!
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: nugnug on April 12, 2018, 04:06:PM
the bbc seemed to change when camron bacame prime minster.

before that they prepaired to qustion offiacal naratives.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 12, 2018, 05:35:PM
I agree mainly, though I do like the radio channels and also the fact that I don't have to sit through adverts.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 12, 2018, 05:45:PM
Ha well they've now changed the headline!
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 13, 2018, 11:59:PM
This headline is just pure propaganda.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43741140

Sometimes i wonder whether the Saville thing opened up a can of worms.. and the people running the BBC are personally compromised.  The standard of reporting, balance and neutrality are woeful.

Edit 17.45 - they've changed the headline!
   The BBC is embarrassing itself just lately, Roch. There is not even a veneer of a pretence towards impartiality. The wholesale swallowing of the "UK government?" official line without question is naked propaganda.
     Some presenters seem to have really lost their marbles just lately. Newsnight, supposedly the BBC's flagship current affairs programme, has been appalling in it's bias and antagonism. Evan Davies and Emily Maitlis deserve special mention here. There recent interviews have been overtly hostile to any opinion which challenges the official narrative in any way.
      No credibility anymore and needs disbanding, something I could not have contemplated until recent years.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 14, 2018, 12:15:AM
   The BBC is embarrassing itself just lately, Roch. There is not even a veneer of a pretence towards impartiality. The wholesale swallowing of the "UK government?" official line without question is naked propaganda.
     Some presenters seem to have really lost their marbles just lately. Newsnight, supposedly the BBC's flagship current affairs programme, has been appalling in it's bias and antagonism. Evan Davies and Emily Maitlis deserve special mention here. There recent interviews have been overtly hostile to any opinion which challenges the official narrative in any way.
      No credibility anymore and needs disbanding, something I could not have contemplated until recent years.

I watched Newsnight tonight and I couldn't believe what I was seeing. 
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 14, 2018, 01:12:AM
I watched Newsnight tonight and I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
   I hadn't watched it for quite a while but, against my better judgement, decided to watch on Wednesday as the accusations of bias have escalated. I have watched the last three nights and it is beyond parody.
    Every story about anything seemingly has to have a spurious anti Corbyn smear thrown in for good measure.
    There can be little doubt now that these "journalists" are nothing but well paid stooges with no interest in asking pertinent questions. It is impossible to be that stupid so it is clear that they are complicit in pushing "war propaganda" for the UK "regime" and lying is simply part of their "job".
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 14, 2018, 06:06:AM
You never know, with any luck, the Russians might invade. 

Russian women do tend to be pretty, you know.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 14, 2018, 10:10:AM
   I hadn't watched it for quite a while but, against my better judgement, decided to watch on Wednesday as the accusations of bias have escalated. I have watched the last three nights and it is beyond parody.
    Every story about anything seemingly has to have a spurious anti Corbyn smear thrown in for good measure.
    There can be little doubt now that these "journalists" are nothing but well paid stooges with no interest in asking pertinent questions. It is impossible to be that stupid so it is clear that they are complicit in pushing "war propaganda" for the UK "regime" and lying is simply part of their "job".





Journalists are dangerous people to the uninitiated.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 14, 2018, 10:28:AM
You never know, with any luck, the Russians might invade. 

Russian women do tend to be pretty, you know.





The sad fact is that the situation could well escalate,it's what Putin and Assad wish for. They haven't listened to reason that chemical attacks anywhere are not acceptable so our Government was left with no other alternative than to seek out these chemicals-----------without interfering in the way Assad runs his country,which some can't seem to grasp ( because they don't want to,such as Corbyn and his mob !)
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 14, 2018, 11:25:AM




Journalists are dangerous people to the uninitiated.
I agree gringo. I have noticed considerable bias against Corbyn recently. Some may enjoy it because it suits their own agenda but it's the thin end of the wedge imo.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 14, 2018, 11:29:AM
   I hadn't watched it for quite a while but, against my better judgement, decided to watch on Wednesday as the accusations of bias have escalated. I have watched the last three nights and it is beyond parody.
    Every story about anything seemingly has to have a spurious anti Corbyn smear thrown in for good measure.
    There can be little doubt now that these "journalists" are nothing but well paid stooges with no interest in asking pertinent questions. It is impossible to be that stupid so it is clear that they are complicit in pushing "war propaganda" for the UK "regime" and lying is simply part of their "job".
People who quote peace not war.... jaw jaw jaw, not war, war, war are always ridiculed and always proved right in the end.  That is the way of the world.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 15, 2018, 11:07:AM
I don't know whether some deal has been struck behind the scenes because of Leveson or whether there has been a cumulative affect with Savill, Cameron era, Leveson etc.  Something has changed though. There is no dissenting voice across the media and it seems not just 'on message' but bullish and brazened with it.  It's a disturbing development with a view to what lays ahead for us all. 
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 15, 2018, 01:41:PM
I don't know whether some deal has been struck behind the scenes because of Leveson or whether there has been a cumulative affect with Savill, Cameron era, Leveson etc.  Something has changed though. There is no dissenting voice across the media and it seems not just 'on message' but bullish and brazened with it.  It's a disturbing development with a view to what lays ahead for us all.
I don't know Roch, I tend to think it is more an anti Corbyn reaction.  The establishment see him as rocking the boat. Think the last election result shook them and they are protecting their own interests,  as always.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 15, 2018, 04:06:PM
I don't know Roch, I tend to think it is more an anti Corbyn reaction.  The establishment see him as rocking the boat. Think the last election result shook them and they are protecting their own interests,  as always.

I was thinking of everything Maggie. Not just Corbyn but Russia, Syria and everything.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 15, 2018, 05:51:PM
I was thinking of everything Maggie. Not just Corbyn but Russia, Syria and everything.
I know but think it all stems from the insecurity and feer of Corbyn being elected. There has always been aN understanding about protecting the Establishment and their power and wealth from the left as well as the right but there seems to be a collective attack on JC because he doesn't dance to that tune.  :-\  I don't really go much on conspiracy theories but there does seem to be a joint enterprise.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 16, 2018, 11:00:AM
I just despair at the anti-bombing campaigners during this last attack on the chemical factories. Left to Corbyn,thousands more children would have perished and this country would have been up in arms about it,but because the " job was done " to destroy these factories that's not right either ??
So what was it to have been ?
The difference was that the air-raids didn't attack civilians !! Corbyn would still have been dithering while children were being murdered. I found it difficult to watch such news on the children of Syria---perhaps Corbyn didn't !

It's a disgrace that the PM has to face questioning on this. Nobody questioned Blair when he took all our troops NEEDLESSLY to Iraq !!
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 16, 2018, 11:33:AM
I just despair at the anti-bombing campaigners during this last attack on the chemical factories. Left to Corbyn,thousands more children would have perished and this country would have been up in arms about it,but because the " job was done " to destroy these factories that's not right either ??
So what was it to have been ?
The difference was that the air-raids didn't attack civilians !! Corbyn would still have been dithering while children were being murdered. I found it difficult to watch such news on the children of Syria---perhaps Corbyn didn't !

It's a disgrace that the PM has to face questioning on this. Nobody questioned Blair when he took all our troops NEEDLESSLY to Iraq !!
Children are being murdered every day by bbarrel bombs and all kinds of unimaginable horrors. I have a friend who's partner is Syrian, his family are either in Idlib or Turkish refugee camps. They have heard stories and seen phone videos of absolute horror which has stopped them sleeping and functioning properly.  I haven't got the courage to look at such things and neither do most people but we do need to accept the true horror of Syria. True the bombs by Trump, May and Macron probably didn't kill anyone and chemical weapons are a scourge and illegal but people young and old will still die horribly.  We have flexed our muscles ... Jeremy Corbyn has campaigned against nuclear and chemical weapons all his life. He was against war in Iraq. Worked for peace in Ireland.  However much people may disagree with his politics I don't think anyone can condemn him for being uncaring.  The only answer to Syria is talking however difficult otherwise this will end in a world war. It is horrendously dangerous.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 16, 2018, 11:57:AM
Children are being murdered every day by bbarrel bombs and all kinds of unimaginable horrors. I have a friend who's partner is Syrian, his family are either in Idlib or Turkish refugee camps. They have heard stories and seen phone videos of absolute horror which has stopped them sleeping and functioning properly.  I haven't got the courage to look at such things and neither do most people but we do need to accept the true horror of Syria. True the bombs by Trump, May and Macron probably didn't kill anyone and chemical weapons are a scourge and illegal but people young and old will still die horribly.  We have flexed our muscles ... Jeremy Corbyn has campaigned against nuclear and chemical weapons all his life. He was against war in Iraq. Worked for peace in Ireland.  However much people may disagree with his politics I don't think anyone can condemn him for being uncaring.  The only answer to Syria is talking however difficult otherwise this will end in a world war. It is horrendously dangerous.







 It'll be far more of a dangerous situation if there is an outcry over the bombing of the factories. I think people should just hold their tongues as a sharp shock to the likes of Assad is more productive saving days/weeks of negotiating and dithering. I couldn't watch the news with those children suffering,so it has to stop.
The only other alternative is to totally ignore anything that goes on in other countries and their regimes. In fact in the Syria case,Assad's regime won't be compromised---just his methods of chemical destruction which would/could have a wider effect than just his own country. Other than that should we ever interfere in those countries which have monstrous rulers ?   Particularly places such as the Middle East.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Jon2 on April 16, 2018, 12:18:PM
When you bomb chemical factories , do any chemicals escape ?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 16, 2018, 12:27:PM
The news that came from those involved in the airstrikes had stated that there was no escape. I would assume that the aircraft used would also be equipped with " seekers " during chemical strikes ?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 16, 2018, 02:37:PM
When you bomb chemical factories , do any chemicals escape ?
I'm not absolutely sure Jon2 I have heard that claimed and no one has disputed it but no actual proof.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 16, 2018, 02:46:PM






 It'll be far more of a dangerous situation if there is an outcry over the bombing of the factories. I think people should just hold their tongues as a sharp shock to the likes of Assad is more productive saving days/weeks of negotiating and dithering. I couldn't watch the news with those children suffering,so it has to stop.
The only other alternative is to totally ignore anything that goes on in other countries and their regimes. In fact in the Syria case,Assad's regime won't be compromised---just his methods of chemical destruction which would/could have a wider effect than just his own country. Other than that should we ever interfere in those countries which have monstrous rulers ?   Particularly places such as the Middle East.
With respect I don't believe Assad will take any notice, he is apparently reckless like his father before him and the rest of the family.    In many ways he is fighting for his life. Like Gaddafi, Saddam and others they believe they will win by crushing all before them but he is doomed just like the others. Using the Syrian people to maje a point is wrong imo.  All we can do is fight for peace by talking imo, whether it seems hopeless or not you need to keep going and never give up. Nothing is resolved by war They all have to talk in the end.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 16, 2018, 03:40:PM
Isn't all this falling in to the hands of the very media we are discussing?  Former British ambassadors have gone on record in very hostile media interviews (Sky and BBC radio), questioning both the Salisbury and Douma incidents.  Where is the proof that Russia was involved in the former and Assad in the latter?  This is very point I am making.  The media are running with a narrative across the board, like it's preordained. There's no dissenting voice and any interviewee who dares to dissent is treated with contempt and mockery.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 16, 2018, 05:04:PM
Isn't all this falling in to the hands of the very media we are discussing?  Former British ambassadors have gone on record in very hostile media interviews (Sky and BBC radio), questioning both the Salisbury and Douma incidents.  Where is the proof that Russia was involved in the former and Assad in the latter?  This is very point I am making.  The media are running with a narrative across the board, like it's preordained. There's no dissenting voice and any interviewee who dares to dissent is treated with contempt and mockery.
I agree Roch but isn't it always so?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 16, 2018, 05:10:PM
Should we really care about how other countries are run/governed ? Too much media is bad for us,methinks.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 16, 2018, 05:48:PM
I agree Roch but isn't it always so?

Possibly - but it seems worse since Cameron era and Savill scandal.  Something has changed.  We used to always hear the tories complain about (non-existent) anti-tory bias in the BBC. They don't seem to complain much these days though. It seems they solved the problem.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 16, 2018, 07:36:PM
Isn't all this falling in to the hands of the very media we are discussing?  Former British ambassadors have gone on record in very hostile media interviews (Sky and BBC radio), questioning both the Salisbury and Douma incidents.  Where is the proof that Russia was involved in the former and Assad in the latter?  This is very point I am making.  The media are running with a narrative across the board, like it's preordained. There's no dissenting voice and any interviewee who dares to dissent is treated with contempt and mockery.
   The lies pumped out by the BBC and establishment figures generally about Corbyn, Syria, Assad, Russia would be laughable were it not so serious.
    Regarding Syria and Assad firstly. The Western countries who are interfering, funding and arming these so called "rebels"; in reality Islamist groups such as Al Nusra Front, Jaish al Islam, Al Qaeda et al. are guilty of the most serious war crime of all, the Crime of Aggression.
    The so called "civil war" would be long over were it not for the interference, funding and arming of foreign sponsored terrorists attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of a sovereign state.
    It is no civil war, it is a foreign sponsored war of aggression sponsored by and on behalf of, in no particular order, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, US, UK, France and Israel plus various other vassal states coerced, bullied or otherwise into this blatant aggression.
    The accounts of gas attacks from "sources" and "activists on the ground" are simply regurgitated terrorist propaganda. "Activists on the ground" is, by the way, simply a euphemism for terrorist. No journalists are allowed to operate in rebel/terrorist held areas and none enter these areas. These "accounts" are then repeated by our politicians and media as if they are objective facts rather than the unsupported and self serving allegations from members of internationally recognised and proscribed terror groups that they are.
     The former diplomats that Roch refers to are voices that should be heard by all. Craig Murray who has an excellent and very informed blog at https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ , was former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and was eventually hounded from office after whistleblowing about illegal rendition and torture undertaken with UK government complicity. There is much information on this particular subject including Mr. Murray's own book "Murder in Samarkand" but a primer is linked here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolicy.uk
     He is in short someone who dares to "speak truth to power" unlike our cowed and pathetic media who merely "tell lies for and on the behalf of power".
     The second Ambassador in question is Peter Ford who was Ambassador to Syria from 2003 to 2006 who has been very outspoken and is also, by magnitudes, better informed on events unfolding there than the propagandists and Jihadi apologists masquerading as journalists at all MSM outlets. There are interviews available and worth searching out for a few truth bombs.
     These voices as well as many others including the excellent John Pilger, independent journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett are silenced in the media because their facts don't fit the narrative being pushed. Peter Hitchens, George Galloway are other voices not asked for their views lest they dare to speak too much truth.
     All of these voices interestingly enough were amongst the most prominent speaking out against western interventions in Iraq and Libya; the objective amongst us would surely agree that history has proven them to have been correct then, along obviously with Jeremy Corbyn himself.
     Those attempting to now convince us of Assad's cruelty and the "humanitarian" need to drop some bombs are also, coincidentally, the same usual suspects who were in favour of western military interventions in Iraq and Libya, well anywhere really. Again the objective amongst us would agree that history has shown these voices to be not only wrong, including the "intelligence" agencies, but spectacularly wrong. For fuck's sake they even wheeled out that nice Tony Blair, who would never lie about intelligence assessments to start a war on a Middle East country, would he?
      Why would anyone imagine that those, who have been shown historically to be poor judges of geopolitics and apparently blind to obvious and foreseeable consequences of this poor judgement, are now credible commentators on current events. They are at best uninformed and lacking in even the most basic modicum of intellectual curiosity or at worst knowingly lying and propagandising for war, for money. I suspect the latter.
      The most unheard voices of all in this are the voices of the Syrian people themselves.
      Do the Syrians want Western "humanitarian" intervention? No they don't by an overwhelming majority as anyone can discover.
      Do the Syrians agree that Assad should be removed from power? Again and by an overwhelming majority the answer is no. This assessment is shared also by NATO hence their insistence that any future democratic election cannot have Assad as a choice. He enjoys the support of 70% plus of the Syrian people and would win any election held today or tomorrow.
     How could this be if the media reports of him "gassing his own people" and him being a "brutal dictator" are true? Are Syrians masochists and stupid or could it be possible that they know more than our bought media are telling us? What do you think?
     The hostility and aggression towards Russia goes back much further but was ramped up to hysterical levels in 2015 when they had the temerity to help defend the sovereignty of Syria against foreign sponsored and armed insurgency when asked for help by the Syrian government( not regime).
     Russia's intervention has been decisive and Syria is on now the verge of total victory against the
 foreign sponsored aggression hence the near total meltdown of the media and those interests served by the governments of the above mentioned Western and Arab countries.
     We need the brave voices to be given prominence now so the public can hear the unvarnished truth about NATO aggression and who it serves. The cowards currently propagandising for war because it is their "job" are leading us to war with Russia based on lies and propaganda.

     
     
     
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Jon2 on April 16, 2018, 08:59:PM
http://podcasts.spiritradio.ie/robert-fisk-from-douma-syria/
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 16, 2018, 09:59:PM
http://podcasts.spiritradio.ie/robert-fisk-from-douma-syria/


Well done that man.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Jon2 on April 16, 2018, 10:00:PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 16, 2018, 10:03:PM
   The lies pumped out by the BBC and establishment figures generally about Corbyn, Syria, Assad, Russia would be laughable were it not so serious.
    Regarding Syria and Assad firstly. The Western countries who are interfering, funding and arming these so called "rebels"; in reality Islamist groups such as Al Nusra Front, Jaish al Islam, Al Qaeda et al. are guilty of the most serious war crime of all, the Crime of Aggression.
    The so called "civil war" would be long over were it not for the interference, funding and arming of foreign sponsored terrorists attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of a sovereign state.
    It is no civil war, it is a foreign sponsored war of aggression sponsored by and on behalf of, in no particular order, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, US, UK, France and Israel plus various other vassal states coerced, bullied or otherwise into this blatant aggression.
    The accounts of gas attacks from "sources" and "activists on the ground" are simply regurgitated terrorist propaganda. "Activists on the ground" is, by the way, simply a euphemism for terrorist. No journalists are allowed to operate in rebel/terrorist held areas and none enter these areas. These "accounts" are then repeated by our politicians and media as if they are objective facts rather than the unsupported and self serving allegations from members of internationally recognised and proscribed terror groups that they are.
     The former diplomats that Roch refers to are voices that should be heard by all. Craig Murray who has an excellent and very informed blog at https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ , was former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and was eventually hounded from office after whistleblowing about illegal rendition and torture undertaken with UK government complicity. There is much information on this particular subject including Mr. Murray's own book "Murder in Samarkand" but a primer is linked here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolicy.uk
     He is in short someone who dares to "speak truth to power" unlike our cowed and pathetic media who merely "tell lies for and on the behalf of power".
     The second Ambassador in question is Peter Ford who was Ambassador to Syria from 2003 to 2006 who has been very outspoken and is also, by magnitudes, better informed on events unfolding there than the propagandists and Jihadi apologists masquerading as journalists at all MSM outlets. There are interviews available and worth searching out for a few truth bombs.
     These voices as well as many others including the excellent John Pilger, independent journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett are silenced in the media because their facts don't fit the narrative being pushed. Peter Hitchens, George Galloway are other voices not asked for their views lest they dare to speak too much truth.
     All of these voices interestingly enough were amongst the most prominent speaking out against western interventions in Iraq and Libya; the objective amongst us would surely agree that history has proven them to have been correct then, along obviously with Jeremy Corbyn himself.
     Those attempting to now convince us of Assad's cruelty and the "humanitarian" need to drop some bombs are also, coincidentally, the same usual suspects who were in favour of western military interventions in Iraq and Libya, well anywhere really. Again the objective amongst us would agree that history has shown these voices to be not only wrong, including the "intelligence" agencies, but spectacularly wrong. For fuck's sake they even wheeled out that nice Tony Blair, who would never lie about intelligence assessments to start a war on a Middle East country, would he?
      Why would anyone imagine that those, who have been shown historically to be poor judges of geopolitics and apparently blind to obvious and foreseeable consequences of this poor judgement, are now credible commentators on current events. They are at best uninformed and lacking in even the most basic modicum of intellectual curiosity or at worst knowingly lying and propagandising for war, for money. I suspect the latter.
      The most unheard voices of all in this are the voices of the Syrian people themselves.
      Do the Syrians want Western "humanitarian" intervention? No they don't by an overwhelming majority as anyone can discover.
      Do the Syrians agree that Assad should be removed from power? Again and by an overwhelming majority the answer is no. This assessment is shared also by NATO hence their insistence that any future democratic election cannot have Assad as a choice. He enjoys the support of 70% plus of the Syrian people and would win any election held today or tomorrow.
     How could this be if the media reports of him "gassing his own people" and him being a "brutal dictator" are true? Are Syrians masochists and stupid or could it be possible that they know more than our bought media are telling us? What do you think?
     The hostility and aggression towards Russia goes back much further but was ramped up to hysterical levels in 2015 when they had the temerity to help defend the sovereignty of Syria against foreign sponsored and armed insurgency when asked for help by the Syrian government( not regime).
     Russia's intervention has been decisive and Syria is on now the verge of total victory against the
 foreign sponsored aggression hence the near total meltdown of the media and those interests served by the governments of the above mentioned Western and Arab countries.
     We need the brave voices to be given prominence now so the public can hear the unvarnished truth about NATO aggression and who it serves. The cowards currently propagandising for war because it is their "job" are leading us to war with Russia based on lies and propaganda.

     
     
   

Thoroughly depressing yet brilliant post.  Bravo!
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 16, 2018, 11:04:PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html
   I should have mentioned Fisk who has also been excellent in his coverage throughout and has been one of the few brave voices.
     https://off-guardian.org/2018/04/15/voices-of-the-syrian-people/

    OffGuardian linked above would probably interest you too Jon if you weren't already aware of it.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 17, 2018, 10:26:AM
   The lies pumped out by the BBC and establishment figures generally about Corbyn, Syria, Assad, Russia would be laughable were it not so serious.
    Regarding Syria and Assad firstly. The Western countries who are interfering, funding and arming these so called "rebels"; in reality Islamist groups such as Al Nusra Front, Jaish al Islam, Al Qaeda et al. are guilty of the most serious war crime of all, the Crime of Aggression.
    The so called "civil war" would be long over were it not for the interference, funding and arming of foreign sponsored terrorists attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of a sovereign state.
    It is no civil war, it is a foreign sponsored war of aggression sponsored by and on behalf of, in no particular order, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, US, UK, France and Israel plus various other vassal states coerced, bullied or otherwise into this blatant aggression.
    The accounts of gas attacks from "sources" and "activists on the ground" are simply regurgitated terrorist propaganda. "Activists on the ground" is, by the way, simply a euphemism for terrorist. No journalists are allowed to operate in rebel/terrorist held areas and none enter these areas. These "accounts" are then repeated by our politicians and media as if they are objective facts rather than the unsupported and self serving allegations from members of internationally recognised and proscribed terror groups that they are.
     The former diplomats that Roch refers to are voices that should be heard by all. Craig Murray who has an excellent and very informed blog at https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ , was former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and was eventually hounded from office after whistleblowing about illegal rendition and torture undertaken with UK government complicity. There is much information on this particular subject including Mr. Murray's own book "Murder in Samarkand" but a primer is linked here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolicy.uk
     He is in short someone who dares to "speak truth to power" unlike our cowed and pathetic media who merely "tell lies for and on the behalf of power".
     The second Ambassador in question is Peter Ford who was Ambassador to Syria from 2003 to 2006 who has been very outspoken and is also, by magnitudes, better informed on events unfolding there than the propagandists and Jihadi apologists masquerading as journalists at all MSM outlets. There are interviews available and worth searching out for a few truth bombs.
     These voices as well as many others including the excellent John Pilger, independent journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett are silenced in the media because their facts don't fit the narrative being pushed. Peter Hitchens, George Galloway are other voices not asked for their views lest they dare to speak too much truth.
     All of these voices interestingly enough were amongst the most prominent speaking out against western interventions in Iraq and Libya; the objective amongst us would surely agree that history has proven them to have been correct then, along obviously with Jeremy Corbyn himself.
     Those attempting to now convince us of Assad's cruelty and the "humanitarian" need to drop some bombs are also, coincidentally, the same usual suspects who were in favour of western military interventions in Iraq and Libya, well anywhere really. Again the objective amongst us would agree that history has shown these voices to be not only wrong, including the "intelligence" agencies, but spectacularly wrong. For fuck's sake they even wheeled out that nice Tony Blair, who would never lie about intelligence assessments to start a war on a Middle East country, would he?
      Why would anyone imagine that those, who have been shown historically to be poor judges of geopolitics and apparently blind to obvious and foreseeable consequences of this poor judgement, are now credible commentators on current events. They are at best uninformed and lacking in even the most basic modicum of intellectual curiosity or at worst knowingly lying and propagandising for war, for money. I suspect the latter.
      The most unheard voices of all in this are the voices of the Syrian people themselves.
      Do the Syrians want Western "humanitarian" intervention? No they don't by an overwhelming majority as anyone can discover.
      Do the Syrians agree that Assad should be removed from power? Again and by an overwhelming majority the answer is no. This assessment is shared also by NATO hence their insistence that any future democratic election cannot have Assad as a choice. He enjoys the support of 70% plus of the Syrian people and would win any election held today or tomorrow.
     How could this be if the media reports of him "gassing his own people" and him being a "brutal dictator" are true? Are Syrians masochists and stupid or could it be possible that they know more than our bought media are telling us? What do you think?
     The hostility and aggression towards Russia goes back much further but was ramped up to hysterical levels in 2015 when they had the temerity to help defend the sovereignty of Syria against foreign sponsored and armed insurgency when asked for help by the Syrian government( not regime).
     Russia's intervention has been decisive and Syria is on now the verge of total victory against the
 foreign sponsored aggression hence the near total meltdown of the media and those interests served by the governments of the above mentioned Western and Arab countries.
     We need the brave voices to be given prominence now so the public can hear the unvarnished truth about NATO aggression and who it serves. The cowards currently propagandising for war because it is their "job" are leading us to war with Russia based on lies and propaganda.

     
     
   

Excellent post.

Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 17, 2018, 11:20:AM
http://podcasts.spiritradio.ie/robert-fisk-from-douma-syria/






Well there you are. It just shows you not to believe anything that is reported. Video's of children in distress will always spark off controversy---------which is why they're shown.

The only picture that has ever remained in my mind was the poor child who'd been burnt by Napalm. That was genuine and also horrific.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Jon2 on April 17, 2018, 02:55:PM
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings/audio/international-mainstream-media-failing-audiences/
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 17, 2018, 04:20:PM
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings/audio/international-mainstream-media-failing-audiences/
Very true Jon2 but is it worse than it always was?  I agree they appear to have not learned anything but maybe much of that is because it doesn't suit their agenda to learn.   Fake news is everywhere.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 17, 2018, 04:47:PM
I have not really followed the Russian poison events lately. Is it the same sort of thing as the cases of Georgi Markov and Alexander Litvinenko?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 17, 2018, 05:19:PM
I have not really followed the Russian poison events lately. Is it the same sort of thing as the cases of Georgi Markov and Alexander Litvinenko?
The Salisbury event is supposed to be Novachok nerve gas while Litvinenko was killed with radium poisoning.  Beyond that who did what to whom is an ongoing argument. 
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 17, 2018, 05:37:PM
The way that the poison was treated by police/forensics all rigged up like spacemen must have meant that the one who delivered the stuff must also have been cautious too ?? It seems strange.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 17, 2018, 05:39:PM
The Salisbury event is supposed to be Novachok nerve gas while Litvinenko was killed with radium poisoning.  Beyond that who did what to whom is an ongoing argument.

IIRC litvenenko was killed with plutonium210 so certainly not the work of amateurs.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 17, 2018, 06:02:PM
According to the DM there are 9 sites around Salisbury that could still be contaminated.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 17, 2018, 06:09:PM
IIRC litvenenko was killed with plutonium210 so certainly not the work of amateurs.
Nerve gas needs professional handling as well.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 17, 2018, 06:17:PM
The way that the poison was treated by police/forensics all rigged up like spacemen must have meant that the one who delivered the stuff must also have been cautious too ?? It seems strange.
I agree. I am completely ignorant about the form nerve gas would have been in and how it can be administered without the perpetrator being contaminated  themself.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 17, 2018, 06:36:PM
I agree. I am completely ignorant about the form nerve gas would have been in and how it can be administered without the perpetrator being contaminated  themself.

Through letter box?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 17, 2018, 07:11:PM
Through letter box?
Possibly but how do they avoid contaminatioN?   It was in liquid form.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 17, 2018, 07:37:PM
Possibly but how do they avoid contaminatioN?   It was in liquid form.

Pity what happened to their pets. Allowed to die in a sealed property.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 17, 2018, 07:46:PM
Pity what happened to their pets. Allowed to die in a sealed property.
Did he have pets?  Thought we were supposed to be animal lovers!
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 17, 2018, 08:51:PM
Did he have pets?  Thought we were supposed to be animal lovers!

Cat and two guinea pigs.  Dehydration I think.  Must have been immune to the Novichok?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 17, 2018, 09:39:PM
Cat and two guinea pigs.  Dehydration I think.  Must have been immune to the Novichok?
Oh how awful. Poor things.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 17, 2018, 10:10:PM
What about those who live nearby and who have animals ? A bit dodgy if the stuff's carried on the wind.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Jon2 on April 23, 2018, 04:19:PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-21/germanys-largest-public-tv-news-broadcaster-syria-chemical-attack-most-likely
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 23, 2018, 06:15:PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-21/germanys-largest-public-tv-news-broadcaster-syria-chemical-attack-most-likely

Isn't it a strange coincidence that the Skripal incident which so damaged Russia's image and standing, just happened to occur as an immediate precursor to the 'Russian-backed' Assad chemical attack?  And then... just when people's scepticism was beginning to gain a foothold, low and behold, the Windrush story takes over the whole news... to take us through nicely to the royal birth.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 23, 2018, 08:47:PM
Isn't it a strange coincidence that the Skripal incident which so damaged Russia's image and standing, just happened to occur as an immediate precursor to the 'Russian-backed' Assad chemical attack?  And then... just when people's scepticism was beginning to gain a foothold, low and behold, the Windrush story takes over the whole news... to take us through nicely the royal birth.
It's still no excuse if Russia has lost control of the nerve agents it produced in the first place.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 23, 2018, 10:00:PM
It's still no excuse if Russia has lost control of the nerve agents it produced in the first place.

You should go and ask your Slavic cousin Steve_RT for their opinion  :))
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 23, 2018, 10:04:PM
What about those who live nearby and who have animals ? A bit dodgy if the stuff's carried on the wind.

The animals in the house didn't die of Novichok.  They simply wasted away because the authorities sealed the house.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 23, 2018, 10:17:PM
You should go and ask your Slavic cousin Steve_RT for their opinion  :))
My transatlantic cousin in Little Rock, Steve_AK might know more..
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 25, 2018, 01:05:PM
It's still no excuse if Russia has lost control of the nerve agents it produced in the first place.
   
     What there is really no excuse for, Steve, is making such bold statements on a subject about which you have little knowledge, as demonstrated by yourself in one line. There is a well known quote which seems apposite, attributed, but probably erroneously, to Mark Twain.

    "It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled"

    The UK government statements on the affair have been contradictory and their actions, or lack of, seem focused on hiding/avoiding rather than finding the truth. The lack of media curiosity and their readiness to merely repeat the official line is another feature which should alert you to the fact that all is not as it seems.
     Your willingness to believe that, "Russia has lost control of the nerve agents it produced in the first place" betrays gullibility and a lack of intellectual curiosity at the questions raised by the contradictions and outright lies. It is doubtful that the Skripals and DS Nick Bailey were ever in contact with a Novichok agent at all and certainly no-one is claiming this anymore.

     As an aside it is worth noting that non of the "victims" of this attack have made any public utterance or appearance since the attack. Eerily similar statements asking for privacy to be respected have been given on behalf of DS Bailey and Yulia Skripal through the Metropolitan Police which in both cases raise more issues than they quash. The first "statement on Yulia's behalf?" came on the 5th April at precisely 2pm and is linked below. The timing appears relevant.
      http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-issued-on-behalf-of-yulia-skripal-301372
      Prior to this statement we, and the courts, had been told that both the Skripal's were in a coma and unlikely to ever recover.
      By massive coincidence, and not at all suspiciously :o, less than one hour before this statement was given, Rossiya 1, a Russian news channel, aired a recorded telephone call between Yulia and her cousin Viktoria. How and whose phone is a mystery but it clearly wasn't in the script. Call can be heard here:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naiq1b-SemE
      I'm sure that the phone call between Yulia and Viktoria being made and publicised didn't prompt the statement from Yulia, albeit using the novel medium of the Metropolitan Police, at all and had no bearing on the decision to release this entirely plausible statement ::)
      On the 11th April a further statement was released, again supposedly and entirely believably, on Yulia Skripals behalf. Yulia, we are led to believe, again "chose ?" the Met as the conduit for her public utterances. Rather than avail herself of the services of the Russian Embassy, a solicitor or her cousin we are to take on trust that she "chose" the Met to make a statement, on her behalf and that now she doesn't want contact with anyone including her family. The statement below:
     http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-issued-on-behalf-of-yulia-skripal-302508
     
     All sounds very sinister and more as if the Skripals are being held incommunicado against their will. The level of unquestioning gullibility required to even believe that someone in Yulia's situation would issue a statement through the Met is off the scale.
     No information is coming from any medical staff, no witnesses and non of the people supposedly affected by this 8 x more deadly than VX nerve agent. What has become of the three main players? No attempt by our free and truth seeking media to find the phone's owner unwittingly at the centre of a huge international incident for an interview. There are many people involved in this saga who an inquisitive and honest media would be duty bound to track down and interview but for some reason no-one in the Main Stream Media seems to have thought of this. It is surely self evident that some form of media blackout has been imposed.

      But back to question of the deadly "nerve agent" which has thus far killed no-one. The Russians should have perhaps tried the British developed "neglect" which has proven way more deadly, so far accounting for two guinea pigs and one cat. One cat is apparently still "on the run" somewhere.
      Immediately the UK government blamed the Russians and the media stayed obediently to the script.
One of the first problems that arose was that the scientists at Porton Down would not and could not confirm it's alleged Russian origin. The scientist's honesty and credibility eventually led to this weaselly worded Porton Down statement discussed here:
     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49003.htm   
     and here:
     https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/of-a-type-developed-by-liars/
     
     So no confirmation of novichok or Russian manufacture just the meaningless "of a type developed by Russia". Surely we will discover more from the application to the "Court of Protection". How Orwellian does that sound? Ministry Of Peace promotes war, Ministry of Truth disseminates lies. Wonder what Orwell's Court of Protection would do? Fuck we're already in an Orwellian dystopia :o
     The judgement is here and makes for interesting reading:
     https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/sshd-v-skripal-and-another-20180322.pdf

     Of particular note is para 17 from which I quote directly below:
"Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound The samples tested positive for the presence of a novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent."
      It is surely apparent now that nobody was poisoned with a Novichok. "Related compound" and "closely related agent" are so vague as to be meaningless. These caveats are used in order to obfuscate the fact that the nerve agent is neither Novichok nor Russian and quite likely not even a nerve agent.
      The full judgement is well worth a read as it raises many troubling questions even to my layman's understanding. NGB would have greater insight into some of the legal machinations being engineered but that is a whole other discussion.
      The UK government belatedly brought in the OPCW to investigate after at first refusing. When the OPCW were called in it was on limited terms. Rather than a full Fact Finding Mission the OPCW team were given the limited remit of confirming the UK scientists findings that confirmed the presence of a particular agent. The name and structure of the agent are in section 12 of the report which is, for some reason, classified.
      Unfortunately for the UK government it seems another one of pesky honest scientists threw a spanner in the works by exposing an inconvenient truth. A scientist from the Spiez Lab in Switzerland apparently leaked the "confidential" part of the report to the Russians and the presence of BZ a US/NATO produced incapacitating agent was present in the samples.
     A pathetic non-denial denial was issued but the discerning had by now long figured that what we have all witnessed over the previous weeks was quite possibly the most incompetent and transparent attempt at a False Flag attack ever.
    It is worth comparing the symptoms of these two agents and then referring back to the initial reports of eye witnesses to the behaviour of the Skripals. In a nutshell, the Skripals displayed behaviour consistent with exposure to BZ not a Novichok nerve agent. The fact that both they and DS Bailey are still alive also indicates exposure to BZ, an incapacitating agent rather than a nerve agent 8 x more deadly than VX. This letter from Dr. Stephen Davies, Consultant in emergency medicine at Salisbury NHS trust published in the Times the day after the same publication had reported dozens of affected people is also illuminating:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/03/21/what-did-the-salisbury-physician-mean-by-no-patients-have-experienced-symptoms-of-nerve-agent-poisoning/

     Again you would imagine our intrepid journalists tripping over each other to delve further into the Doctor's claims and his refutation of the use of a nerve agent. Well, you would imagine this if you believed our media weren't compromised but our intrepid journos reacted with a collective disinterested shrug confirming that the answer to Roch's thread question is Yes and that the question could be further extended to include most Mainstream Media.

     This story is being followed and reported on at any number of credible non mainstream sites. The previously mentioned and excellent Craig Murray, OffGuardian, Moon of Alabama plus many many others doing what reporters are meant to do. Roch linked previously to  ZeroHedge who have also reported on the whole fiasco. Fisk, Galloway, Hitchens etc. all more questioning and sceptical than most of our supine media.
     Dare to convince yourself that you have been fooled, Steve.
     And for anyone interested the cat is still believed to be "on the run" hopefully having been taken by a kindly local in order to protect it from death by neglect at the hands of MI6 ???

     
     
     
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 25, 2018, 10:07:PM
   
     What there is really no excuse for, Steve, is making such bold statements on a subject about which you have little knowledge, as demonstrated by yourself in one line. There is a well known quote which seems apposite, attributed, but probably erroneously, to Mark Twain.

    "It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled"

    The UK government statements on the affair have been contradictory and their actions, or lack of, seem focused on hiding/avoiding rather than finding the truth. The lack of media curiosity and their readiness to merely repeat the official line is another feature which should alert you to the fact that all is not as it seems.
     Your willingness to believe that, "Russia has lost control of the nerve agents it produced in the first place" betrays gullibility and a lack of intellectual curiosity at the questions raised by the contradictions and outright lies. It is doubtful that the Skripals and DS Nick Bailey were ever in contact with a Novichok agent at all and certainly no-one is claiming this anymore.

     As an aside it is worth noting that non of the "victims" of this attack have made any public utterance or appearance since the attack. Eerily similar statements asking for privacy to be respected have been given on behalf of DS Bailey and Yulia Skripal through the Metropolitan Police which in both cases raise more issues than they quash. The first "statement on Yulia's behalf?" came on the 5th April at precisely 2pm and is linked below. The timing appears relevant.
      http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-issued-on-behalf-of-yulia-skripal-301372
      Prior to this statement we, and the courts, had been told that both the Skripal's were in a coma and unlikely to ever recover.
      By massive coincidence, and not at all suspiciously :o, less than one hour before this statement was given, Rossiya 1, a Russian news channel, aired a recorded telephone call between Yulia and her cousin Viktoria. How and whose phone is a mystery but it clearly wasn't in the script. Call can be heard here:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naiq1b-SemE
      I'm sure that the phone call between Yulia and Viktoria being made and publicised didn't prompt the statement from Yulia, albeit using the novel medium of the Metropolitan Police, at all and had no bearing on the decision to release this entirely plausible statement ::)
      On the 11th April a further statement was released, again supposedly and entirely believably, on Yulia Skripals behalf. Yulia, we are led to believe, again "chose ?" the Met as the conduit for her public utterances. Rather than avail herself of the services of the Russian Embassy, a solicitor or her cousin we are to take on trust that she "chose" the Met to make a statement, on her behalf and that now she doesn't want contact with anyone including her family. The statement below:
     http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-issued-on-behalf-of-yulia-skripal-302508
     
     All sounds very sinister and more as if the Skripals are being held incommunicado against their will. The level of unquestioning gullibility required to even believe that someone in Yulia's situation would issue a statement through the Met is off the scale.
     No information is coming from any medical staff, no witnesses and non of the people supposedly affected by this 8 x more deadly than VX nerve agent. What has become of the three main players? No attempt by our free and truth seeking media to find the phone's owner unwittingly at the centre of a huge international incident for an interview. There are many people involved in this saga who an inquisitive and honest media would be duty bound to track down and interview but for some reason no-one in the Main Stream Media seems to have thought of this. It is surely self evident that some form of media blackout has been imposed.

      But back to question of the deadly "nerve agent" which has thus far killed no-one. The Russians should have perhaps tried the British developed "neglect" which has proven way more deadly, so far accounting for two guinea pigs and one cat. One cat is apparently still "on the run" somewhere.
      Immediately the UK government blamed the Russians and the media stayed obediently to the script.
One of the first problems that arose was that the scientists at Porton Down would not and could not confirm it's alleged Russian origin. The scientist's honesty and credibility eventually led to this weaselly worded Porton Down statement discussed here:
     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49003.htm   
     and here:
     https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/of-a-type-developed-by-liars/
     
     So no confirmation of novichok or Russian manufacture just the meaningless "of a type developed by Russia". Surely we will discover more from the application to the "Court of Protection". How Orwellian does that sound? Ministry Of Peace promotes war, Ministry of Truth disseminates lies. Wonder what Orwell's Court of Protection would do? Fuck we're already in an Orwellian dystopia :o
     The judgement is here and makes for interesting reading:
     https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/sshd-v-skripal-and-another-20180322.pdf

     Of particular note is para 17 from which I quote directly below:
"Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound The samples tested positive for the presence of a novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent."
      It is surely apparent now that nobody was poisoned with a Novichok. "Related compound" and "closely related agent" are so vague as to be meaningless. These caveats are used in order to obfuscate the fact that the nerve agent is neither Novichok nor Russian and quite likely not even a nerve agent.
      The full judgement is well worth a read as it raises many troubling questions even to my layman's understanding. NGB would have greater insight into some of the legal machinations being engineered but that is a whole other discussion.
      The UK government belatedly brought in the OPCW to investigate after at first refusing. When the OPCW were called in it was on limited terms. Rather than a full Fact Finding Mission the OPCW team were given the limited remit of confirming the UK scientists findings that confirmed the presence of a particular agent. The name and structure of the agent are in section 12 of the report which is, for some reason, classified.
      Unfortunately for the UK government it seems another one of pesky honest scientists threw a spanner in the works by exposing an inconvenient truth. A scientist from the Spiez Lab in Switzerland apparently leaked the "confidential" part of the report to the Russians and the presence of BZ a US/NATO produced incapacitating agent was present in the samples.
     A pathetic non-denial denial was issued but the discerning had by now long figured that what we have all witnessed over the previous weeks was quite possibly the most incompetent and transparent attempt at a False Flag attack ever.
    It is worth comparing the symptoms of these two agents and then referring back to the initial reports of eye witnesses to the behaviour of the Skripals. In a nutshell, the Skripals displayed behaviour consistent with exposure to BZ not a Novichok nerve agent. The fact that both they and DS Bailey are still alive also indicates exposure to BZ, an incapacitating agent rather than a nerve agent 8 x more deadly than VX. This letter from Dr. Stephen Davies, Consultant in emergency medicine at Salisbury NHS trust published in the Times the day after the same publication had reported dozens of affected people is also illuminating:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/03/21/what-did-the-salisbury-physician-mean-by-no-patients-have-experienced-symptoms-of-nerve-agent-poisoning/

     Again you would imagine our intrepid journalists tripping over each other to delve further into the Doctor's claims and his refutation of the use of a nerve agent. Well, you would imagine this if you believed our media weren't compromised but our intrepid journos reacted with a collective disinterested shrug confirming that the answer to Roch's thread question is Yes and that the question could be further extended to include most Mainstream Media.

     This story is being followed and reported on at any number of credible non mainstream sites. The previously mentioned and excellent Craig Murray, OffGuardian, Moon of Alabama plus many many others doing what reporters are meant to do. Roch linked previously to  ZeroHedge who have also reported on the whole fiasco. Fisk, Galloway, Hitchens etc. all more questioning and sceptical than most of our supine media.
     Dare to convince yourself that you have been fooled, Steve.
     And for anyone interested the cat is still believed to be "on the run" hopefully having been taken by a kindly local in order to protect it from death by neglect at the hands of MI6 ???

     
     
   

A thoroughly good read.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 25, 2018, 11:03:PM
A thoroughly good read.
    We live in an interesting and eventful point of history, Roch, as you seem well aware.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 27, 2018, 08:13:PM
You have little knowledge of it either,your lengthy post being all supposition. I prefer to recall the case of Alexander Litvinenko, which makes me think that there are rogue elements in Russia with access to these substances wishing to curry favour with Putin and his quasi-one party state, sustained through the shocking murder of Boris Nemtsov and the disbarment of Alexei Navalny in the March election.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 27, 2018, 09:44:PM
Not only Russia.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 28, 2018, 07:49:PM
You have little knowledge of it either,your lengthy post being all supposition. I prefer to recall the case of Alexander Litvinenko, which makes me think that there are rogue elements in Russia with access to these substances wishing to curry favour with Putin and his quasi-one party state, sustained through the shocking murder of Boris Nemtsov and the disbarment of Alexei Navalny in the March election.
    Do you believe as you first stated that the nerve agent used was produced by the Russians?
     If you do believe this could you endow us with the evidence to back up this claim? It is a simple request. The OPCW, the Porton Down scientists and the UK government have been very careful to not make this claim. The UK government have only committed themselves to this carefully crafted statement which is designed to lead the gullible into inferring untruths which they themselves cannot explicitly utter. Here is the official UK government statement issued in the aftermath of the incident:

    "This use of a military grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War."

    Why, do you think, are the words, "of a type developed by Russia" used? Why does that statement not explicitly claim, as you do, that the Russians produced the nerve agent? Why is the word developed rather than produced used? What exactly does the otherwise superfluous "of a type" mean? Take the words "of a type" away from the statement and it still makes sense. However, without these words it would explicitly blame the Russians. Do you think that this is perhaps why they were inserted?
    Perhaps more importantly, why do you think that the statement falls short of claiming that the agent used was of a type "exclusively" developed by Russia. It obviously leaves the clear implication that other unnamed countries also developed "agents of this type" but , well they are not attempting to imply guilt on the other unnamed countries.
    If you do not know the answers to these questions, or were unaware that they even existed because you don't question enough, then I will spell it out for you.
    The statement to anyone who follows politics is meaningless twaddle, spin, a form of words "of a type developed by Whitehall" designed to distract and mislead.
    It is crafted in such a way as to avoid making accusations, ie. directly lying, which are unsupported by any evidence but is simultaneously misleading enough to encourage the unenlightened to infer that Russia is being named as responsible. You have fallen for it hook, line and sinker and are now making wild and unsupported allegations that the Russians "produced" the nerve agent used in Salisbury. You actually believe that this "fact" is somehow undisputed demonstrating your own "little knowledge" and then, without irony, accuse me of the same.
     You claim that my previous post displayed "little knowledge" and was "all supposition". Quite how you dismiss as "supposition" the letter from Salisbury Consultant Dr. Davies, the court papers not naming novichok, the dubious statements via the Met, the phone call from Yulia, the media blackout on all of these witnesses/victims, the OPCW involvement under strangely prohibitive terms dictated by the UK government and the rest of the uncontested statements and findings of scientists is something that only you can answer. I suspect that you didn't read it fully and have demonstrated that it is in fact,
     "easier to fool a person than convince them they have been fooled"
     As for having "little knowledge" your own "short posts" manage to pack more supposition into a single sentence than I could manage in a book displaying, for all to see, your ignorance.
     To dismiss the post as supposition and to "prefer to recall the case of Alexander Litvinenko...", is a pathetic attempt to divert, but only long enough to attempt to distract from the fact that you are unable to rebut anything in my post or offer any evidence to back up your own claims.
      I choose the words "but only long enough" carefully, because it is already apparent to me that your knowledge of the Litvinenko and Nemtsov murders, as well as the disbarment of Navalny is, to be generous, no worse than your "understanding" of the Salibury Affair and any discussion on those matters would rapidly demonstrate this.
      I am happy to discuss any and all of the above cases but I "would prefer" that you back up your claims regarding Salisbury first. Can you provide any evidence that the agent used in Salisbury was Russian manufactured and if so, then do. Can you also provide the evidence that in any way shows/proves Russian involvement?
     
       
     
   
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 28, 2018, 11:16:PM
    Do you believe as you first stated that the nerve agent used was produced by the Russians?
     If you do believe this could you endow us with the evidence to back up this claim? It is a simple request. The OPCW, the Porton Down scientists and the UK government have been very careful to not make this claim. The UK government have only committed themselves to this carefully crafted statement which is designed to lead the gullible into inferring untruths which they themselves cannot explicitly utter. Here is the official UK government statement issued in the aftermath of the incident:

    "This use of a military grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War."

    Why, do you think, are the words, "of a type developed by Russia" used? Why does that statement not explicitly claim, as you do, that the Russians produced the nerve agent? Why is the word developed rather than produced used? What exactly does the otherwise superfluous "of a type" mean? Take the words "of a type" away from the statement and it still makes sense. However, without these words it would explicitly blame the Russians. Do you think that this is perhaps why they were inserted?
    Perhaps more importantly, why do you think that the statement falls short of claiming that the agent used was of a type "exclusively" developed by Russia. It obviously leaves the clear implication that other unnamed countries also developed "agents of this type" but , well they are not attempting to imply guilt on the other unnamed countries.
    If you do not know the answers to these questions, or were unaware that they even existed because you don't question enough, then I will spell it out for you.
    The statement to anyone who follows politics is meaningless twaddle, spin, a form of words "of a type developed by Whitehall" designed to distract and mislead.
    It is crafted in such a way as to avoid making accusations, ie. directly lying, which are unsupported by any evidence but is simultaneously misleading enough to encourage the unenlightened to infer that Russia is being named as responsible. You have fallen for it hook, line and sinker and are now making wild and unsupported allegations that the Russians "produced" the nerve agent used in Salisbury. You actually believe that this "fact" is somehow undisputed demonstrating your own "little knowledge" and then, without irony, accuse me of the same.
     You claim that my previous post displayed "little knowledge" and was "all supposition". Quite how you dismiss as "supposition" the letter from Salisbury Consultant Dr. Davies, the court papers not naming novichok, the dubious statements via the Met, the phone call from Yulia, the media blackout on all of these witnesses/victims, the OPCW involvement under strangely prohibitive terms dictated by the UK government and the rest of the uncontested statements and findings of scientists is something that only you can answer. I suspect that you didn't read it fully and have demonstrated that it is in fact,
     "easier to fool a person than convince them they have been fooled"
     As for having "little knowledge" your own "short posts" manage to pack more supposition into a single sentence than I could manage in a book displaying, for all to see, your ignorance.
     To dismiss the post as supposition and to "prefer to recall the case of Alexander Litvinenko...", is a pathetic attempt to divert, but only long enough to attempt to distract from the fact that you are unable to rebut anything in my post or offer any evidence to back up your own claims.
      I choose the words "but only long enough" carefully, because it is already apparent to me that your knowledge of the Litvinenko and Nemtsov murders, as well as the disbarment of Navalny is, to be generous, no worse than your "understanding" of the Salibury Affair and any discussion on those matters would rapidly demonstrate this.
      I am happy to discuss any and all of the above cases but I "would prefer" that you back up your claims regarding Salisbury first. Can you provide any evidence that the agent used in Salisbury was Russian manufactured and if so, then do. Can you also provide the evidence that in any way shows/proves Russian involvement?
     
       
     
   
I know full well what I wrote in #53 and the post does not claim that there is 100% proof that the Novichok originated in Russia. However since you press me it is my opinion that it was, either in Shikhany or GOSNIIOKhT and that the state has lost control of some of the supplies it claimed it had destroyed under the OPCW agreement.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 29, 2018, 12:47:AM
I know full well what I wrote in #53 and the post does not claim that there is 100% proof that the Novichok originated in Russia. However since you press me it is my opinion that it was, either in Shikhany or GOSNIIOKhT and that the state has lost control of some of the supplies it claimed it had destroyed under the OPCW agreement.
It's still no excuse if Russia has lost control of the nerve agents it produced in the first place.
   It seems pretty clear that you are claiming that Russia "lost control of nerve agents it produced". Nobody but you is claiming this. You should be more careful with the language you use and more discerning when you read official statements where every word is chosen carefully. Developed and produced are very different in meaning and one was chosen over the other for good reason. There is no evidence that Novichok was ever produced in Russia and every reason to believe that it never has been. The danger of you being aware of any of this uncontested evidence is however somewhere between slim and nil.
   What facts are your opinion based on? What evidence is your "belief" based on? There is literally zero evidence available to support this contention unless you are basing your belief of the incoherent and since retracted ramblings of Boris Johnson where he went slightly off script to a German TV interviewer.
   Do you have any credible sources to support your belief that Russia produced the agent at Shikhany?
Your contention that you believe that it is from stock that, "Russia claimed that it had destroyed under the OPCW agreement" is slightly disingenuous. The OPCW themselves confirmed the destruction of these stocks so not only Russia was "claiming" this. We have yet to see a source, or reference to anything supporting your belief. You are simply repeating the propaganda and misrepresentations that the likes of Boris Johnson and Hamish de Bretton Gordon spout as if it is actual analysis.
   Do you base all of your beliefs on the incoherent and inconsistent ramblings of government mouthpieces, trusting that they wouldn't lie to you? Do you trust Johnson and co. to do your thinking for you?
   
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 29, 2018, 02:07:PM
No I form my own opinions and whether they are held by another person or not I don't mind one way or the other. On Betnod I was accused by Winrew of being "the cut and paste guy" and here recently I was accused of plagiarism. I'm going to make another assumption here which may be totally wrong, namely that you're a young guy in your 20s who has no conception whatsoever of what a totalitarian regime or a quasi-democratic one can do to the individual.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/novichok-scientist-fears-life-russia-lab-nerve-agent-salisbury-attack-vladimir-uglev-a8326076.html
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 29, 2018, 03:38:PM
   It seems pretty clear that you are claiming that Russia "lost control of nerve agents it produced". Nobody but you is claiming this. You should be more careful with the language you use and more discerning when you read official statements where every word is chosen carefully. Developed and produced are very different in meaning and one was chosen over the other for good reason. There is no evidence that Novichok was ever produced in Russia and every reason to believe that it never has been. The danger of you being aware of any of this uncontested evidence is however somewhere between slim and nil.
   What facts are your opinion based on? What evidence is your "belief" based on? There is literally zero evidence available to support this contention unless you are basing your belief of the incoherent and since retracted ramblings of Boris Johnson where he went slightly off script to a German TV interviewer.
   Do you have any credible sources to support your belief that Russia produced the agent at Shikhany?
Your contention that you believe that it is from stock that, "Russia claimed that it had destroyed under the OPCW agreement" is slightly disingenuous. The OPCW themselves confirmed the destruction of these stocks so not only Russia was "claiming" this. We have yet to see a source, or reference to anything supporting your belief. You are simply repeating the propaganda and misrepresentations that the likes of Boris Johnson and Hamish de Bretton Gordon spout as if it is actual analysis.
   Do you base all of your beliefs on the incoherent and inconsistent ramblings of government mouthpieces, trusting that they wouldn't lie to you? Do you trust Johnson and co. to do your thinking for you?
 

This was written in a 1995 report on situation with Russians stockpiles.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 29, 2018, 05:48:PM
No I form my own opinions and whether they are held by another person or not I don't mind one way or the other. On Betnod I was accused by Winrew of being "the cut and paste guy" and here recently I was accused of plagiarism. I'm going to make another assumption here which may be totally wrong, namely that you're a young guy in your 20s who has no conception whatsoever of what a totalitarian regime or a quasi-democratic one can do to the individual.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/novichok-scientist-fears-life-russia-lab-nerve-agent-salisbury-attack-vladimir-uglev-a8326076.html
    How did you form this opinion? I have asked you to to provide the evidence/info upon which you form this opinion and you have thus far failed to do so. In the absence of any evidence supporting your belief we are left to ponder from whence it came. The only other source for this claim that I am aware of is Hamish de Bretton Gordon and it was mere speculation on his part. It is fair to say that he is hardly a disinterested observer. Quite simply, Steve, on what do you base your belief that the Russians lost control of a nerve agent, that they produced probably at Shikhany? On what you have offered so far I can only assume that you are parroting HdBG.
    Your other latest assumption demonstrates that you haven't lost your touch when it comes to being spectacularly poor at making assumptions.
    I am in my mid 50's married with four daughters, the eldest being 35 and the youngest 19, as well as 4 grandchildren aged between 2 and 14. I have been aware of and a keen follower of politics and the wider geopolitical situation for over 30 years.
    It is pretty clear from your contributions on this thread, limited as they are, that your reading is as "expansive" as your thinking and you are pretty poorly informed.
    That I have, "no conception whatsoever of what a totalitarian regime or a quasi democratic one can do to the individual" is one of your more laughable and pompous statements, containing within it the clear implication that you somehow understand these concepts. I would wager that I could fit your collected thoughts on this on the back of a postage stamp and still leave room for the Lord's Prayer.
    "Totalitarian regime and quasi democratic" are just words to you, Steve. Your understanding of world affairs is very shallow.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 29, 2018, 06:00:PM
This was written in a 1995 report on situation with Russians stockpiles.
   And?
    What is your reason for posting an irrelevant section of a report from an unknown source that has nothing to do with the situation now. A 1995 report that has no relevance to 2018. Really what point are you even attempting to make?
    The Soviet Union collapsed over a quarter of a century ago. Any nerve agents from the early 1990's would have long since degraded, google it yourself it isn't contested, so what possible relevance does your contribution offer.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 29, 2018, 06:22:PM
This was written in a 1995 report on situation with Russians stockpiles.
   Do you imagine that this report in some way supports the theory of Russian culpability for the Salisbury incident?
     
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 29, 2018, 06:35:PM
Well there's no documentary evidence linking Adolf Hitler to the Holocaust, but that just shows how a totalitarian regime works. The Skripal and Litvinenko poisonings were probably carried out by rogue elements with links to the FSB in an attempt to obtain brownie points with Putin, all people with more money than sense and endless time on their hands it seems.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 29, 2018, 06:49:PM
   And?
    What is your reason for posting an irrelevant section of a report from an unknown source that has nothing to do with the situation now. A 1995 report that has no relevance to 2018. Really what point are you even attempting to make?
    The Soviet Union collapsed over a quarter of a century ago. Any nerve agents from the early 1990's would have long since degraded, google it yourself it isn't contested, so what possible relevance does your contribution offer.

There does not seem to be answer to what the shelf life of the agent is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/89na53/what_is_the_approximate_shelflife_of_the_novichok/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/89na53/what_is_the_approximate_shelflife_of_the_novichok/)

The toxin is kept in the form of two chemical precursors, physically separated within the weapon. Only when these two are mixed is the Novichok agent created.

So what is the shelf life of the binary components?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 29, 2018, 07:38:PM
Well there's no documentary evidence linking Adolf Hitler to the Holocaust, but that just shows how a totalitarian regime works. The Skripal and Litvinenko poisonings were probably carried out by rogue elements with links to the FSB in an attempt to obtain brownie points with Putin, all people with more money than sense and endless time on their hands it seems.
    That's a bit of a roundabout way of admitting that there is no evidence to support your contentions of Russian responsibility and it now seems reasonable to infer that my hunch was correct. Your theory is simply a regurgitation of de Bretton Gordon's own evidence free thoughts.
    Invoking Hitler and the Holocaust is frankly bizarre and the relevance is difficult to discern. Your thoughts on the Skripal and Litvinenko poisonings are exactly what you have been told to think but you believe you formed your views independently all by yourself. It is mere coincidence that they exactly mirror the official line. I would guess that the level of evidence required by you is the same standard applied to the Skripal affair.

    Steve's approach to forming an evidence based view:

    1)  Find out the official line mouthed by Establishment lackeys and aired by the BBC et al as a shortcut to applying critical thinking.
    2)  Repeat the official line and claim that you thought of it all by yourself.
    3)  If challenged to produce evidence simply say something about Hitler and the holocaust ( other diversions apropos of nothing can also be used eg. mention a historic incident unconnected with the issue being discussed)
    4) Back to 2
   
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 29, 2018, 07:52:PM
   Do you imagine that this report in some way supports the theory of Russian culpability for the Salisbury incident?
     

No. I was just curious about Steve's claim that Russia lost control of chemical weapons. Doing my own research now it seems plausible.

There have been attempts to sell Soviet submarines to the Colombian drug cartels.

As for the culpability for the Salisbury incident thats obvious. Just like with Alexander Litvinenko.

Both were involved in the Russian military intelligence and became double agents convicted/accused of high treason. It acts as a deterrent for other Russians in the military considering treason so. In Litvinenko's case specialy, what a terrible way to go.

The only alternative senario is that Skripal was actually a triple agent (A triple agent is an agent who has been turned into a double agent, who is then wittingly or unwittingly turned again against the rival organization or nation that initially turned them into a double agent.) The UK found this out and killed him using Russian MO in order to cast suspiction away from themselves.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 29, 2018, 08:43:PM
No. I was just curious about Steve's claim that Russia lost control of chemical weapons. Doing my own research now it seems plausible.

There have been attempts to sell Soviet submarines to the Colombian drug cartels.

As for the culpability for the Salisbury incident thats obvious. Just like with Alexander Litvinenko.

Both were involved in the Russian military intelligence and became double agents convicted/accused of high treason. It acts as a deterrent for other Russians in the military considering treason so. In Litvinenko's case specialy, what a terrible way to go.

The only alternative senario is that Skripal was actually a triple agent (A triple agent is an agent who has been turned into a double agent, who is then wittingly or unwittingly turned again against the rival organization or nation that initially turned them into a double agent.) The UK found this out and killed him using Russian MO in order to cast suspiction away from themselves.
    Your findings from your own research offer a very simple choice of scenarios and this perhaps reflects the amount of time your "research" has taken.
    If you followed world events in real time through a number of lenses you would already have a coherent and more credibly backed view.
    If you believe it is obvious that Russia are responsible then you need to open your mind. International espionage is not an exclusively Russian enterprise. There are any number of intelligence agencies somewhat pissed off at Russia's resurgence in the global picture, especially their support of the Syrian government.
    The intelligence agencies of the UK, US, Saudi, Israel plus others have motives for discrediting Russia.
Syria with Russia's help have all but defeated the jihadist terrorists funded, armed and supported by the above in an attempt to overthrow Assad.
    Russia have no real credible motive for attempting to murder Skripal. He was released and pardoned by them years earlier and could have been sentenced to death for treason when convicted.
    If you want to do some research, David, may I suggest you look into Pablo Miller. He was/is Sergei Skripal's MI6 handler and currently works for Orbis, a shadowy intelligence company and most likely a MI6 front.
    Interestingly a "d notice" was issued by the government in the immediate aftermath of Salisbury censoring the media from identifying Pablo Miller. Christopher Steele of the "steele dossier" infamy is a founding director of Orbis.
    I do not claim to know who was responsible for Salisbury and there are any number of suspects in the frame but the Russians are nowhere on the list realistically.
   The Pablo Miller/ Christopher Steele connection is an interesting one especially when allied with the knowledge that this is the connection that the government have "d noticed".
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Jon2 on April 29, 2018, 08:54:PM
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Jon2 on April 29, 2018, 08:55:PM
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2018/04/26/noam-chomsky-reveals-the-disturbing-result-of-the-syria-strikes-that-our-media-is-ignoring/
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 29, 2018, 09:22:PM
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk
   Do you believe that there is any connection between the Salisbury and Douma incidents?
    It seems the most plausible theory to me currently. Living through the "Information revolution" as we do, the world of espionage and international Realpolitik are laid bare and it is difficult for the government to control the narrative and information flow. It is like being in the midst of a le Carre novel.
    There are many outspoken, informed and honest commentators, as you are obviously aware, speaking out but you have to seek them out. Galloway has been superb on Talk Radio and Sputnik and is always worth a listen whether you agree with him or not.
    Craig Murray who you linked to has been the most thorough and informed source of information throughout this affair, as well as many others. It was he who first revealed through whistleblowers at Porton Down that the government were misleading the public with the Russian responsibility line. It was this pressure  on the scientists which led to the previously mentioned awkwardly worded statement. I am sure that you have read it already Jon but for the uninitiated the article is here:
 
     https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=of+a+type
     
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 29, 2018, 09:24:PM
   Do you believe that there is any connection between the Salisbury and Douma incidents?
    It seems the most plausible theory to me currently. Living through the "Information revolution" as we do, the world of espionage and international Realpolitik are laid bare and it is difficult for the government to control the narrative and information flow. It is like being in the midst of a le Carre novel.
    There are many outspoken, informed and honest commentators, as you are obviously aware, speaking out but you have to seek them out. Galloway has been superb on Talk Radio and Sputnik and is always worth a listen whether you agree with him or not.
    Craig Murray who you linked to has been the most thorough and informed sources of information throughout this affair, as well as many others. It was he who first revealed through whistleblowers at Porton Down that the government were misleading the public with the Russian responsibility line. It was this pressure  on the scientists which led to the previously mentioned awkwardly worded statement. I am sure that you have read it already Jon but for the uninitiated the article is here:
 
     https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=of+a+type
     
He has taken Putin's rouble and as such is not an impartial observer.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 29, 2018, 09:30:PM
He has taken Putin's rouble and as such is not an impartial observer.
   Steve, you have nothing to offer this debate and are way out of your depth. Your responses are pathetic, you fail to engage properly and basically are reduced to just shouting insults from the sidelines.
   
   
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Jon2 on April 29, 2018, 09:44:PM
He has taken Putin's rouble and as such is not an impartial observer.

Maybe Peter Hitchens is more your thing Steve , listen carefully

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3RVaeHR__E&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on April 29, 2018, 09:44:PM
Do you believe that there is any connection between the Salisbury and Douma incidents?  It seems the most plausible theory to me currently.

Yes.  It became obvious from the moment the 'chemical attack' took place in Douma. 
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Jon2 on April 29, 2018, 09:59:PM
Yes.  It became obvious from the moment the 'chemical attack' took place in Douma.

Care to expand ?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on April 29, 2018, 10:06:PM
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2018/04/26/noam-chomsky-reveals-the-disturbing-result-of-the-syria-strikes-that-our-media-is-ignoring/
Sounds plausible to me
 
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 29, 2018, 10:06:PM
Maybe Peter Hitchens is more your thing Steve , listen carefully

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3RVaeHR__E&feature=youtu.be
Peter Hitchens? You mean the Tory who backed policies which destroyed family life in the 1980s and who bleats on ever since how family life has been destroyed?

I will give it a listen though..
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 29, 2018, 10:11:PM
    Your findings from your own research offer a very simple choice of scenarios and this perhaps reflects the amount of time your "research" has taken.
    If you followed world events in real time through a number of lenses you would already have a coherent and more credibly backed view.
    If you believe it is obvious that Russia are responsible then you need to open your mind. International espionage is not an exclusively Russian enterprise. There are any number of intelligence agencies somewhat pissed off at Russia's resurgence in the global picture, especially their support of the Syrian government.
    The intelligence agencies of the UK, US, Saudi, Israel plus others have motives for discrediting Russia.
Syria with Russia's help have all but defeated the jihadist terrorists funded, armed and supported by the above in an attempt to overthrow Assad.
    Russia have no real credible motive for attempting to murder Skripal. He was released and pardoned by them years earlier and could have been sentenced to death for treason when convicted.
    If you want to do some research, David, may I suggest you look into Pablo Miller. He was/is Sergei Skripal's MI6 handler and currently works for Orbis, a shadowy intelligence company and most likely a MI6 front.
    Interestingly a "d notice" was issued by the government in the immediate aftermath of Salisbury censoring the media from identifying Pablo Miller. Christopher Steele of the "steele dossier" infamy is a founding director of Orbis.
    I do not claim to know who was responsible for Salisbury and there are any number of suspects in the frame but the Russians are nowhere on the list realistically.
   The Pablo Miller/ Christopher Steele connection is an interesting one especially when allied with the knowledge that this is the connection that the government have "d noticed".

Hopefully Skripal will recover well and the investigation will continue further.

Novichok is supposed to be five times as deadly as standard nerve agent. So the fact the target survived and is recovering could well lend credence to the idea that it was from an old stockpile in the early stages of degradation? But that's for experts to decide on. We will have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Jon2 on April 29, 2018, 10:15:PM
Peter Hitchens? You mean the Tory who backed policies which destroyed family life in the 1980s and who bleats on ever since how family life has been destroyed?

I will give it a listen though..
I do apologize Steve .
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 29, 2018, 10:39:PM
Yes.  It became obvious from the moment the 'chemical attack' took place in Douma.
   I believe that a real chemical weapons incident was meant to take place. There seems little doubt that the whole Douma incident however involved no chemical weapons, as your inverted commas imply.
    Did you watch the Russian OPCW press conference with the 17 Syrian witnesses. The reaction of the British press was hilarious and enlightening. Talk of "parading witnesses" and "obscene masquerade" replacing any reportage of the testimony of self evidently credible witness testimony.
    The questions asked by the British press with their open accusations of lying and nasty insinuations at the end of the press conference betrays their agenda.
     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKil4rhDFW8
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 29, 2018, 10:55:PM
Hopefully Skripal will recover well and the investigation will continue further.

Novichok is supposed to be five times as deadly as standard nerve agent. So the fact the target survived and is recovering could well lend credence to the idea that it was from an old stockpile in the early stages of degradation? But that's for experts to decide on. We will have to wait and see.
   David, it is well worth clicking on to some of the links posted by myself, Jon and Roch. The UK government narrative has frankly fallen apart. The continued blackout of any witnesses, participants and victims should be setting off alarm bells for anyone. The whereabouts and well being of the Skripals we are to take on trust and DS Bailey has disappeared into the memory hole. How do you see nothing sinister in any of this?
   The theory that the novichok is from old Soviet stock has no credence whatsoever. You need to look further than just looking for ways the "Russians" did it. There are plenty of credible and informative links on this thread.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 29, 2018, 11:20:PM
   The theory that the novichok is from old Soviet stock has no credence whatsoever.

You have not provided any tangible evidence to refute it. You simply don't like the idea.

What are the component chemicals of Novichok and what are their shelf life? You have not answered this and I doubt anyone could.

Russia not only has the means means, motive and opportunity but also has this mode of operating.

Only two contries have ever been known to make it. Russia and Iran.

Who is your alternative suspect and how did they optain the toxin?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: nugnug on April 29, 2018, 11:27:PM
You have not provided any tangible evidence to refute it. You simply don't like the idea.

What are the component chemicals of Novichok and what are their shelf life? You have not answered this and I doubt anyone could.

Russia not only has the means means, motive and opportunity but also has this mode of operating.

Only two contries have ever been known to make it. Russia and Iran.

Who is your alternative suspect and how did they optain the toxin?

what difference does it make if he was shot with uzi would that mean is isreal did it if he was shot with smith and western would that mean amerce did it weather it was Russian made or not means absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 29, 2018, 11:42:PM
what difference does it make if he was shot with uzi would that mean is isreal did it if he was shot with smith and western would that mean amerce did it weather it was Russian made or not means absolutely nothing.

False comparison. These weapons are not sold like guns. They are kept in secure locations. They are not all easy to acquire. If the substance is highly controlled you can narrow down where it came from.




Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: nugnug on April 30, 2018, 12:04:AM
False comparison. These weapons are not sold like guns. They are kept in secure locations. They are not all easy to acquire. If the substance is highly controlled you can narrow down where it came from.

this was made in the days of the soviet union so any of the former soviet republics could have some not to mention the former eastern block country's and they could of sold it on to countless other people
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 30, 2018, 12:34:AM
this was made in the days of the soviet union so any of the former soviet republics could have some not to mention the former eastern block country's and they could of sold it on to countless other people

They don't sell it. Unless some has creeped into the black market. Then again you need to know how to use this stuff. Its not like using a gun.

Some was produced in the 90s by Russia. And they wont sell it because they don't want it to fall into enemy hands.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 30, 2018, 12:37:AM
You have not provided any tangible evidence to refute it. You simply don't like the idea.

What are the component chemicals of Novichok and what are their shelf life? You have not answered this and I doubt anyone could.

Russia not only has the means means, motive and opportunity but also has this mode of operating.

Only two contries have ever been known to make it. Russia and Iran.

Who is your alternative suspect and how did they optain the toxin?
   What idea is that? It is simply a fanciful theory backed by nothing more than conjecture.
    As you are keen to point out yourself, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
   The mixing of the component chemicals is the tricky and dangerous part and the theory that unnamed persons took some old Soviet stock to mix together 25+ years later has literally nothing to support it. Who, when, where? What lab did they mix them in 25+ years later? To call it a theory lends it a stature it doesn't deserve.
   Your belief that the only two countries known to make it being Iran and Russia is just intellectually lazy, wrong and lacks any context.
   Iran synthesised novichok under the supervision of the OPCW in 2016. Now if you were genuinely curious, and not just intent on blind jingoism, you may wonder why Iran did this. Things like this do not happen in a vacuum.
   Prior to this novichoks were not listed as a prohibited chemical weapon by the OPCW because the consensus was that they were not viable and had never been successfully synthesised.
    Wikileaks have released emails between US and UK OPCW delegations and State Dept. discussing how best to divert from discussing novichok and prevent it's listing by the OPCW. The reason other countries delegations were bringing up the subject was because of the revelations of Vils Mirzayanov , a Soviet scientist from the chemical weapons programme, who defected to the US where he still lives. In his book, still available, "State Secrets" Mirzanayov actually gives the formula for novichoks. The US and UK delegations made sure that the OPCW did not list novichoks and the  email trail proves this. Read it below:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/03/clinton-state-department-discouraged-novichok-discussion.html
   
    Do you think that perhaps the Iranians had got wind of US/UK shenanigans and probably the knowledge that the US/UK had successfully synthesised novichok? Would this explain Iran's working alongside the OPCW to produce it themselves and get it listed by the OPCW? Why did US/UK delegations seem keen to prevent novichok being listed?
    Or do you think that the Iranian interest had nothing to do with the questions being raised by many delegations and they just produced novichok for no real reason?
   
     
   
     
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on April 30, 2018, 01:09:AM
   What idea is that? It is simply a fanciful theory backed by nothing more than conjecture.
    As you are keen to point out yourself, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
   The mixing of the component chemicals is the tricky and dangerous part and the theory that unnamed persons took some old Soviet stock to mix together 25+ years later has literally nothing to support it. Who, when, where? What lab did they mix them in 25+ years later? To call it a theory lends it a stature it doesn't deserve.
 

I am not the one arguing for degradation. That was your claim.

Have you ascertained the shelf life of the component chemicals? No
Have you even found out what the component chemicals are? No
You said "google it yourself it isn't contested" So I am waiting.


Has Russia produced Novichok? Yes
Can Russia make more Novichok? Yes
Did Russia let Skripal go as part of a spy swap deal? Yes
Has the Russian secret service used posion before? Yes
Do the Russians like people who commit treason? No

Means motive and opportunity is all there.

You said a few posts back

He was released and pardoned by them years earlier and could have been sentenced to death for treason when convicted.

He was convicted in 2006. Russian judicial death penalty was abolished in 1999. I dont think you are in any position to criticise me in my ways of investigating world affairs. You have applied zero formal or systematic examination of the subject we are talking about.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 30, 2018, 04:21:AM
I am not the one arguing for degradation. That was your claim.

Have you ascertained the shelf life of the component chemicals? No
Have you even found out what the component chemicals are? No
You said "google it yourself it isn't contested" So I am waiting.


Has Russia produced Novichok? Yes
Can Russia make more Novichok? Yes
Did Russia let Skripal go as part of a spy swap deal? Yes
Has the Russian secret service used posion before? Yes
Do the Russians like people who commit treason? No

Means motive and opportunity is all there.

You said a few posts back

He was convicted in 2006. Russian judicial death penalty was abolished in 1999. I dont think you are in any position to criticise me in my ways of investigating world affairs. You have applied zero formal or systematic examination of the subject we are talking about.
   Your question was and is irrelevant and a pathetic diversion given that it is a scenario seemingly plucked from your backside. The info is simple to find as already made clear and your question was dismissed on the grounds that you frequently state yourself. You asserted without evidence and I felt free to dismiss with the same standard applied. However here is the answer to your irrelevant question about degradation.

https://evolvepolitics.com/what-the-government-isnt-telling-you-about-novichok-nerve-agents/

    So, we have the previously mentioned Vils Mirzayanov confirming what I said about the degradation and the difficulty being the mixing. Your theory is nonsense. The detail of the death penalty in Russia is irrelevant to the point. If they had intended Skripal harm then they had ample opportunity before they  pardoned and released him.
    Your silly list of questions and answers is idiotic and shows your lack of understanding of world affairs. That you cannot conceive that the intelligence services of other nations including the UK have motives for the attack, despite the many links on this thread alone, displays your ignorance.
   I am also well aware that Mirzayanov claims to believe the Russians responsible but as a defector and clear "CIA asset" his opinions on these matters are obviously going to mirror the official CIA line.
   Scientific facts however are not subjective. You need a new theory.
   Instead of searching only for reasons to blame Russia, perhaps you could explain why the intelligence agencies of the US/UK were proven to be actively working to prevent novichok being listed by the OPCW. You have spent about ten minutes "researching" this and it shows.
Here's the link again that you clearly didn't read.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/03/clinton-state-department-discouraged-novichok-discussion.html

   
    It is damning on the UK/US and begs questions way more relevant than the questions that your "analysis" raises.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 30, 2018, 05:50:AM

[/quote]   It is also worth reading the following links, already provided in this thread, where you will be able to establish that the only people making the claim that a novichok was used in Salisbury is you and Steve. This also shows that your research didn't even stretch to reading the conversations in this thread.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/of-a-type-developed-by-liars/

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/sshd-v-skripal-and-another-20180322.pdf

   The statement issued by the UK government is very carefully worded and if you read down to para. 17 of the judgement you will find similar qualified language. This is not a mistake and it is unlikely that a novichok was used let alone one that Russia has to account for.
   It is obvious that you have some catching up to do.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 30, 2018, 06:52:AM
    Here is some more reading for you, David:

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-issues-report-on-technical-assistance-requested-by-the-united-kingdom/

    Of note is that novichok is not mentioned and the OPCW were only asked to confirm the UK findings of the agent used. The details of the UK findings are classified.
    You may then ask at this point why the UK government didn't request a full fact finding mission by the OPCW under section 9 but instead only brought in the OPCW after pressure from allies who wanted more reassurance as they were being corralled into diplomatic expulsions etc. When as a result of this pressure the UK government did call in the OPCW it was under section 8 and limited to technical assistance. I doubt you understand the difference or the significance of that difference but anyway.
    The technical assistance asked for was for the OPCW to confirm the UK labs analysis of the agent. As previously noted the UK analysis is classified. Apart from Boris Johnson occasionally wandering off script, the UK government has stuck to the "of a type" wording in all official communications on the issue. The court papers linked to earlier avoid mentioning novichok and use the meaningless "or closely related agent" type language. Paragraph 17 of the judgement linked in the previous post.                                               
    Are you still so confident that the Skripals were poisoned with a novichok from old Soviet stock :o, or that they were poisoned with a novichok which only Russia and Iran are known to produce?
   
   
   
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 30, 2018, 09:12:AM
Contact and/or ingestion of the stuff is totally incurable,so how they're still alive beats me. There's no antidote.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 30, 2018, 05:04:PM
Contact and/or ingestion of the stuff is totally incurable,so how they're still alive beats me. There's no antidote.
   There was no novichok, Lookout.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 30, 2018, 05:07:PM
    Craig Murray site under another denial of service ongoing from last night, coincidentally just after mentioning the D notice on Pablo Miller  ???
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 30, 2018, 05:32:PM
    Perhaps something to do with this:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/where-they-tell-you-not-to-look/
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on April 30, 2018, 08:47:PM
   There was no novichok, Lookout.





No,there couldn't have been. Any contamination of the stuff is lethal and would positively have killed those two agents immediately.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 30, 2018, 11:30:PM
    Worth a read:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/netanyahoo-to-again-cry-wolf-but-something-bigger-is-up.html#more
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 30, 2018, 11:35:PM
I think gringo's posts are very well argued and persuasive.

Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on April 30, 2018, 11:53:PM
I think gringo's posts are very well argued and persuasive.
   Given that your living/profession is forming coherent and persuasive arguments then I am flattered that you believe so, Neil.
   
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on May 01, 2018, 02:19:AM
I think gringo's posts are very well argued and persuasive.

Is that the same Gringo who tried to argue that Russia had no involvement in Ukraine while Russian tanks were filmed rolling into the Ukranian city of Luhansk?

https://streamable.com/nejnl (https://streamable.com/nejnl)

 ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on May 01, 2018, 04:01:AM
Is that the same Gringo who tried to argue that Russia had no involvement in Ukraine while Russian tanks were filmed rolling into the Ukranian city of Luhansk?

https://streamable.com/nejnl (https://streamable.com/nejnl)

 ;D ;D ;D ;D
    I argued that there was no Russian invasion of Ukraine which is true. I had a look through the thread you refer to earlier today. I am surprised that you bring it up as it wasn't your finest hour. Your lack of knowledge and understanding apparent to any objective observer.
     You were literally all over the place and in all honesty had your arse handed to you, your ignorance of geopolitics displayed for all to see. Not that ignorance in itself is necessarily bad, most of the population are ignorant when it comes to world affairs and geopolitics. You however attempt to pass off your 5 minutes reading of wikipedia and a you-tube video as if you are informed enough to engage in debate about matters of which you have no knowledge and no understanding of wider context.
    Your attempts to draw some form of moral equivalence between minor border disputes in Georgia etc., that lasted days and resulted in a handful of deaths, and the 17 years and ongoing wars of aggression launched by US/UK et al in their "War on Terror" which have resulted in millions of deaths, many more millions injured and countless millions of displaced people being one of your more laughable efforts at showing your knowledge. To demonstrate "Russian aggression" that particular gem.
    Your pretence at understanding international law where you selectively quoted from international lawyers to support your stance only for it to turn out that the opposite was true when the quote was given in full being another. The whole thread a demonstration of the shallowness of your understanding.
    What is noticeable is that you haven't responded to the debunking of your "theory". Best divert onto something else and hope I don't notice that you just dropped your half baked assumptions.
    Here is the thread you refer to, David. Happy reading  ;)

     http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6518.360.html
 
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on May 01, 2018, 07:26:AM
    I argued that there was no Russian invasion of Ukraine which is true. I had a look through the thread you refer to earlier today. I am surprised that you bring it up as it wasn't your finest hour. Your lack of knowledge and understanding apparent to any objective observer.
     You were literally all over the place and in all honesty had your arse handed to you, your ignorance of geopolitics displayed for all to see. Not that ignorance in itself is necessarily bad, most of the population are ignorant when it comes to world affairs and geopolitics. You however attempt to pass off your 5 minutes reading of wikipedia and a you-tube video as if you are informed enough to engage in debate about matters of which you have no knowledge and no understanding of wider context.
    Your attempts to draw some form of moral equivalence between minor border disputes in Georgia etc., that lasted days and resulted in a handful of deaths, and the 17 years and ongoing wars of aggression launched by US/UK et al in their "War on Terror" which have resulted in millions of deaths, many more millions injured and countless millions of displaced people being one of your more laughable efforts at showing your knowledge. To demonstrate "Russian aggression" that particular gem.
    Your pretence at understanding international law where you selectively quoted from international lawyers to support your stance only for it to turn out that the opposite was true when the quote was given in full being another. The whole thread a demonstration of the shallowness of your understanding.
    What is noticeable is that you haven't responded to the debunking of your "theory". Best divert onto something else and hope I don't notice that you just dropped your half baked assumptions.
    Here is the thread you refer to, David. Happy reading  ;)

     http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6518.360.html

Since you keep criticising my sources I would like to see you try and find a reason to dismiss this one.

This is the official website of the "Donetsk People's Republic" one of the two Russian proto states in the Ukrainian Donbass region.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&u=https://glava-lnr.info/content/gosudarstvennaya-simvolika&xid=17259,15700022,15700124,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhhaaB0SnKfeP5_9J7CaNf5UxfoVpw (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&u=https://glava-lnr.info/content/gosudarstvennaya-simvolika&xid=17259,15700022,15700124,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhhaaB0SnKfeP5_9J7CaNf5UxfoVpw)

I find the national anthem rather telling.

Our Motherland, our Power.

We will keep your name in our hearts.

And the power of the people will be sanctified

In our one and strong union.

There will be brotherhood in it, honor and freedom,

And Cathedral, glorious Russia!


LMAO!!

Russian Tanks rolling around. Russian Ruble is Offical currency and "glorious Russia!" is the national anthem of the land. This is on territory that is supposed to be Ukraine. You want to tell me there has been no Russian invasion?



(https://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/vladimir-putin-laughing.gif)
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on May 01, 2018, 08:17:AM
Since you keep criticising my sources I would like to see you try and find a reason to dismiss this one.

This is the official website of the "Donetsk People's Republic" one of the two Russian proto states in the Ukrainian Donbass region.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&u=https://glava-lnr.info/content/gosudarstvennaya-simvolika&xid=17259,15700022,15700124,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhhaaB0SnKfeP5_9J7CaNf5UxfoVpw (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&u=https://glava-lnr.info/content/gosudarstvennaya-simvolika&xid=17259,15700022,15700124,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700201&usg=ALkJrhhaaB0SnKfeP5_9J7CaNf5UxfoVpw)

I find the national anthem rather telling.

Our Motherland, our Power.

We will keep your name in our hearts.

And the power of the people will be sanctified

In our one and strong union.

There will be brotherhood in it, honor and freedom,

And Cathedral, glorious Russia!


LMAO!!

Russian Tanks rolling around. Russian Ruble is Offical currency and "glorious Russia!" is the national anthem of the land. This is on territory that is supposed to be Ukraine. You want to tell me there has been no Russian invasion?



(https://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/vladimir-putin-laughing.gif)
    I have addressed your latest diversion in the "Russia" thread where your alleged invasion has already been discussed/debunked.
   Back to what you are attempting to divert from in this thread.
   Do you still consider as a viable "theory" the idea that a novichok agent from old Soviet stock was lost control of at some undefined time and location and then used an unknown number of years later mixed by unknown persons at an unknown lab but they were definitely Russian?
    You haven't addressed this after I answered your questions regarding degradation. Are we to take it that you now realise that your theory is "highly unlikely" to paraphrase Theresa May and the Foreign Office.
   
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on May 01, 2018, 08:40:AM
    I have addressed your latest diversion in the "Russia" thread where your alleged invasion has already been discussed/debunked.
   Back to what you are attempting to divert from in this thread.
   Do you still consider as a viable "theory" the idea that a novichok agent from old Soviet stock was lost control of at some undefined time and location and then used an unknown number of years later mixed by unknown persons at an unknown lab but they were definitely Russian?
    You haven't addressed this after I answered your questions regarding degradation. Are we to take it that you now realise that your theory is "highly unlikely" to paraphrase Theresa May and the Foreign Office.
 

Diversion?  ::)

I simply have no need to reply. Nor can I justify wasting time and energy on this because nothing logical that I bring up will have any significance to you. It does not sink in and as a result there is no effective debate.

How do you win an argument with an idiot?
Who is the idiot? It is not very wise to try to argue with an idiot. There is no chance of winning.

PS: I cannot stand Theresa May.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on May 01, 2018, 09:05:AM
Diversion?  ::)

I simply have no need to reply. Nor can I justify wasting time and energy on this because nothing logical that I bring up will have any significance to you. It does not sink in and as a result there is no effective debate.

How do you win an argument with an idiot?
Who is the idiot? It is not very wise to try to argue with an idiot. There is no chance of winning.

PS: I cannot stand Theresa May.
   You often have no need to reply when you can't answer. And resort to ad hom attacks. I'm surprised you haven't called me a conspiracy theorist and invoked the tinfoil hat yet.
    To answer your question. The best way win an argument with an idiot is to ignore their diversions and not move on until whatever the latest crazy assertions they are passing off as informed opinion have been satisfactorily addressed.
    The "Catch 22" in this is that the idiot cannot back up his idiotic assertions, on the obvious grounds that the assertions are idiotic, and at this point the idiot flounces off muttering under his breath.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on May 01, 2018, 11:06:AM
Let's just get on with the World cup in Russia and " pretend " nothing happened.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on May 01, 2018, 01:12:PM
I see we are now being prepped by Israel / USA / BBC for action to be taken against Iran.  Well that wasn't very predictable was it? 
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Roch on May 01, 2018, 01:47:PM
I agree mainly, though I do like the radio channels and also the fact that I don't have to sit through adverts.

I can only stand listening to Radio 4 and Radio 4 Extra.

I'm unusual in that I listen to plays, documentaries & investigations and some retro broadcasts from previous decades. I rarely have music on the radio.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: maggie on May 01, 2018, 03:26:PM
I see we are now being prepped by Israel / USA / BBC for action to be taken against Iran.  Well that wasn't very predictable was it?
God help us!
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on May 01, 2018, 06:55:PM
Iran has always been a thorn in the side.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on May 01, 2018, 07:17:PM
I can only stand listening to Radio 4 and Radio 4 Extra.

I'm unusual in that I listen to plays, documentaries & investigations and some retro broadcasts from previous decades. I rarely have music on the radio.




There's nothing wrong with that Roch,I watch Vintage TV for films with documentaries from the '50's.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on May 01, 2018, 08:12:PM
God help us!
I see we are now being prepped by Israel / USA / BBC for action to be taken against Iran.  Well that wasn't very predictable was it?
  At this point in time we should be grateful that Russia, Iran et al have consistently refused to respond to the bait of the outrageous, criminal aggression and provocations of  the NATO crime syndicate. Had the Russians been as aggressive as our government like to tell us they are, we would already be turned to radioactive ash. It has been apparent to many observers for some time that Russia and partners are playing a longer game and are methodically working towards their own objectives
    Resources and transit routes are the main driver of the Nato sponsored aggression. Russia, Iran and Syria between them have vast resources and control of the transit routes to Europe. Israel's designs on the occupied Golan Heights adds another twist to the interests at play in the Syrian War. This control of routes and resources is the driver of our aggression. To believe that our intervention is for any humanitarian concern for anyone displays an unquestioning credulity beyond measure.
    The aggression shown by NATO countries is off the scale criminality and our governments actions should shame us all. Those who decide "my country right or wrong", are the "useful idiots", not those willing to criticise and call to account our own representatives criminal actions.
    The ones being attacked as Putin or Assad apologists, useful idiots, the enemy within, conspiracy theorists or whatever other smears are being bandied about, are the ones we would all be well advised to listen to.
    The apologists for war criminals are much nearer to home and in fact are the same useful idiots who history has shown to be apologists for any war, anywhere as long as we are the aggressors, dropping humanitarian bombs on whatever country we happen to have designs on at that particular time.
     It appears that time is running out on the NATO empire. How else to explain the suicidal desire to attack Iran. Hopefully the Iranians and Russians can prevent this aggression because the repercussions of any attack could escalate rapidly and catastrophically.
     The current situation is, in my view,potentially the most dangerous in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on May 01, 2018, 09:24:PM
Do you have any credible explanation for the first change of international borders by force in Europe since 1945, namely the invasion of Crimea by Russia?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: nugnug on May 01, 2018, 09:33:PM
Do you have any credible explanation for the first change of international borders by force in Europe since 1945, namely the invasion of Crimea by Russia?

well they voted to become part of russia refrendom because most of them are Russians that's not an invasion that's democracy.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: David1819 on May 01, 2018, 09:48:PM
Do you have any credible explanation for the first change of international borders by force in Europe since 1945, namely the invasion of Crimea by Russia?

The 1997 treaty between Russia and Ukraine allowed up to 25,000 Russia troops in Crimea region.

They more or less agreed to there to own invasion.  ;D
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on May 01, 2018, 09:52:PM
The 1997 treaty between Russia and Ukraine allowed up to 25,000 Russia troops in Crimea region.

They more or less agreed to there to own invasion.  ;D
No you're forgetting the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: ngb1066 on May 01, 2018, 09:59:PM
well they voted to become part of russia refrendom because most of them are Russians that's not an invasion that's democracy.

Well said nugnug.



Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: nugnug on May 01, 2018, 10:06:PM
crimea actually belongs to the tarters so neather country should really have it but out the 2 Russia probably has the better claim.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on May 01, 2018, 10:10:PM
Not only Russia.





I've mentioned this before that when my brother worked in telecommunications he'd also " meet and greet " clients from overseas. In the late 1970's early 80's he met a client at Heathrow airport off a flight from South Africa. Rather than the client look for a hotel my brother offered him a room at his own house to which was accepted. The visitor had been interested in touring around which my brother had obliged and one morning after breakfast off they went to the old city of Chester----------but partway there my brother had to stop the car and was violently ill. However he got back and carried on until he stopped again and the same thing happened. All this time,the visitor just sat motionless in the car and didn't offer any assistance. Brother turned the car and drove back home and collapsed in bed but not before the visitor enquired about the alarm system in the house which my brother wasn't going to tell.
This " agent " then left by taxi and brother had the doctor call. Blood was taken and an " unknown substance " was found in his bloodstream.
Nothing was ever said or reported about this as GCHQ kept it quiet. Prior to all this,brother had been to South Africa on business where he'd kitted out 10 military vehicles with the latest telephone equipment.

Brother recovered,but was never physically the same after having been very fit. Now in his 70's he has cancer which I swear was a result of whatever was " put in his breakfast " that day.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on May 01, 2018, 10:10:PM
Well said nugnug.
I take it you're not an international lawyer ngb1066..
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: Steve_uk on May 01, 2018, 10:12:PM




I've mentioned this before that when my brother worked in telecommunications he'd also " meet and greet " clients from overseas. In the late 1970's early 80's he met a client at Heathrow airport off a flight from South Africa. Rather than the client look for a hotel my brother offered him a room at his own house to which was accepted. The visitor had been interested in touring around which my brother had obliged and one morning after breakfast off they went to the old city of Chester----------but partway there my brother had to stop the car and was violently ill. However he got back and carried on until he stopped again and the same thing happened. All this time,the visitor just sat motionless in the car and didn't offer any assistance. Brother turned the car and drove back home and collapsed in bed but not before the visitor enquired about the alarm system in the house which my brother wasn't going to tell.
This " agent " then left by taxi and brother had the doctor call. Blood was taken and an " unknown substance " was found in his bloodstream.
Nothing was ever said or reported about this as GCHQ kept it quiet. Prior to all this,brother had been to South Africa on business where he'd kitted out 10 military vehicles with the latest telephone equipment.

Brother recovered,but was never physically the same after having been very fit. Now in his 70's he has cancer which I swear was a result of whatever was " put in his breakfast " that day.
That's terrible lookout.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on May 01, 2018, 10:24:PM
Do you have any credible explanation for the first change of international borders by force in Europe since 1945, namely the invasion of Crimea by Russia?
   Your interventions in this discussion are so ill informed it is baffling why you bother. It is patently untrue that force was used to "invade Crimea". Who died in this invasion by force? It is true that the threat of force prevents invasion by other forces but the Crimeans were self evidently not invaded nor forced to do anything. You really are an obedient little lapdog aren't you, Steve. Do you ever question anything?
    Why concern yourself with the actions of Russia in Crimea just because that's what you are told via our compromised media. It is not disputed that Crimeans want to be part of Russia so for what reason do you want to deny Crimeans their own wishes? Exactly who is your "concern" on behalf of? It is unclear, to me at least, on whose behalf you are protesting.
    Be honest with yourself and ask these questions and then you can tell us who the beneficiaries of your faux concern are.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on May 01, 2018, 10:34:PM
I take it you're not an international lawyer ngb1066..
   Priceless!!  ;D ;D
    I feel pretty certain that NGB is somewhat better informed than you are likely to be on international law, Steve. 
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: gringo on May 01, 2018, 10:39:PM
I take it you're not an international lawyer ngb1066..
   I take it that you are aware of what NGB's profession is, Steve?
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: lookout on May 01, 2018, 10:44:PM
That's terrible lookout.





It was awful Steve. My brother,never a sickly man,was so ill. What's more whatever had been ingested was never known,or rather even if brother new,he never cracked on. He worked between Liverpool and GCHQ for years.
Title: Re: Is the BBC totally compromised?
Post by: nugnug on May 14, 2018, 10:28:AM
oh look a d notice.

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/05/12/d-notice-over-skripal-poisoning-suggests-the-information-weve-been-given-was-false/