The Skripals-the obvious lies of the UK gov-what really happened?

[gringo]

     The credibility of the tale told by the UK government is so obviously bullshit, that it is staggering to me that people take this incoherent, inconsistent nonsense at face value. It falls apart immediately under any questioning at all. But questioning is "repeating Russian misinformation" or being a "Putin apologist". It isn't questioning obvious lies, it is spreading "Russian misinformation" so ignore your own lying eyes.
     The not questioning is a vital, but less understood part of propaganda and how it works. We have reached a stage where questioning the official  UK government line is regarded as unpatriotic or pro-Russian, pro-Assad. It bullies people mentally and psychologically into not questioning. Not many dare to be the boy who recognises that the Emperor is naked. Rather than not wanting to seen as too stupid to see the Emperors fine threads-people are instead afraid of being seen as pro-Putin(the new Hitler!!) and refuse to see the holes in Empire's not so fine threads.
      It is a story that cannot be summed up in one post, hence a new thread.
      The best and most detailed archive is on Salisbury resident and blogger Rob Slane's website the blogmire;

   https://www.theblogmire.com/category/skripal-case/

   
     
      He found himself at the centre of what was to become a huge international story. Although dismissed by David, with his usual irrelevant irreverence, as a "paleo conservative creationist", the detailed day to day reporting by RS and commenting by an army of informed locals and others made the Blogmire easily the most detailed reporting on the affair. Quite what the significance the religious beliefs and political views of anyone has to do with reporting on a huge local story is not elaborated on. They have no bearing, obviously. Do you apply the "check the religious beliefs and political opinions" test to everyone or just those whose views you find challenging? Must make it hard watching or reading anything. All that due diligence you need to carry out before watching or reading to make sure that they are "ideologically pure". Maybe just read/watch and then apply your own "critical thinking" to what has been written/said.
     I will post my views on what I believe was really was going on in Salisbury on 4 March 2018. It is speculation obviously, but based on what agreed facts that are available. What isn't speculation however, is that the UK government version of events is definitely not true, too many facts need to be ignored and wished away for it to be so. Our compliant media ignore those facts but truth doesn't.

     
     
   
       

[gringo]

You claimed there was "zero mentions" of Novichok in the OPCW reports. I looked, lo and behold it was there. You then started claiming the OPCW was corrupt.
-David
    You looked in the confidential OPCW reports? It is a fact, David, that the OPCW only confirmed that the substance was what the UK govt said it was. What the UK gov. told the OPCW is confidential. The OPCW were only requested by the UK gov to conduct technical assistance rather than a full "Fact Finding Mission". So you will now be able to show me the OPCW reports that identify the substance used as Novichok-won't you? Where you looked and lo and behold-it was there! That is an easily identifiable lie, David. Show us the OPCW report, David, where Novichok is identified. You can't. There isn't one. I don't want a link to a media report or a UKgov page. The OPCW report that you allege you read and lo and behold...
Below from the OPCW themselves;

OPCW Technical Assistance was requested by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in regards to the chemical incident in Salisbury on 4 March 2018 involving a toxic chemical—allegedly a nerve agent—and the poisoning and hospitalisation of three people.

The OPCW team worked independently and was not involved in the national investigation by the UK authorities. No State Party was involved in the technical work carried out by the Technical Secretariat.

The OPCW team collected environmental and biomedical samples and sent them to four OPCW designated laboratories.

The results of the analysis confirmed the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical.

The UK’s delegation to the OPCW requested that the Technical Secretariat share the report with all States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and to make the Executive Summary of the report publicly available.

     You may wonder, and ought to, why the UK gov didn't ask the OPCW to do a full "Fact Finding Mission"(FFM). The allegation being made by the UK gov demands nothing less. If true, then Russia have committed an act of war by attacking a country with a chemical weapon as well as a atrocious war crime in a populated area. Who wouldn't demand a full and independent investigation?
     If the allegation was an invention of your intelligence agencies and meant only for crude propaganda, you would probably want to avoid an independent FFM gathering their own samples with full chain of custody. If the allegation was true then you would demand nothing less. Russia requested that the UK invite the OPCW for a FFM. Many wondered why the UK gov were more interested in running propaganda through the press than having an independent investigation into this alleged crime which belatedly led to the UK gov requesting "technical assistance" from the OPCW. A typical perfidious solution of the UK.
     The nature of the assistance the UK gov requested from the OPCW was to ask the OPCW to confirm the "findings" of the UK scientists. The findings of the UK gov are confidential. The OPCW confirmed the UK gov findings which are confidential at the UK insistence.
     The OPCW have only ever confirmed the UK governments findings. Those findings are confidential. The samples were collected by the UK gov without chain of custody. The OPCW have never been asked to confirm that the Novichok was used in Salisbury and nor have they ever claimed this. These are uncontested facts. That you contest them is because you are ill informed.
     Riddle me this? or apply a bit of critical thought-if you can.

     If the UK allegations against Russia were true-do you not think it "unusual"(some may think inexplicable) that the body set up specifically to "achieve a world permanently free of chemical weapons and to contribute to international security and stability, general and complete disarmament" has made no statement or comment on the deployment of a banned chemical weapon supposedly by a state that has been verified by the OPCW as having destroyed all chemical weapons stocks. But nothing. A chemical weapon listed as banned by the OPCW and not a peep of condemnation. No call for an independent investigation. All very curious, don't ya think? No calls for an independent investigation by the UK either. Curiouser and curiouser.
    It is ludicrous to believe that the OPCW have evidence of the use of a banned chemical weapon/deadly nerve agent and have nothing to say about it. Only the gullible believe the UK gov story. It is why there is no independent investigation. The story doesn't survive contact with air, never mind reason. It would shatter into a million pieces under the scrutiny of independent investigation.
    Novichok use has never been claimed officially by the UK gov. It is obvious bullshit and propaganda.
    The inquest of Dawn Sturgess, the only person to die from use of the "world's deadliest nerve agent" described the substance as "Novichok or a related agent". "Related agent", is such a vague elastic term that it is meaningless. Craig Murray on the subject below;

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/no-inquest-for-dawn-sturgess/
     

[gringo]

     The report of the OPCW below on the Amesbury incident


NOTE BY THE TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT ON ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT
IN SUPPORT OF A REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
(TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE VISIT TAV/03/18 AND TAV/03B/18
“AMESBURY INCIDENT”)
1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland requested technical
assistance from the OPCW Technical Secretariat (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) under
subparagraph 38(e) of Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention in relation
to an incident in Amesbury on 30 June 2018 involving a toxic chemical and the
poisoning and hospitalisation of two individuals and the subsequent death of one. The
Director-General decided to dispatch a team to the United Kingdom for a technical
assistance visit (TAV).
2. The TAV team deployed to the United Kingdom from 15 July to 18 July 2018 to
collect biomedical samples and again on 13 August 2018 to obtain an additional
environmental sample.
3. The team received information on the medical condition of the surviving affected
individual, Mr Charles Rowley. This included information on his acetylcholinesterase
status since hospitalisation, as well as information on the treatment regime.
4. The team was able to collect blood samples from Mr Charles Rowley for transport to
the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW Designated Laboratories.
Mr Rowley was able to give informed consent himself.
5. The team attended and observed the post-mortem (autopsy) of Ms Dawn Sturgess.
The team was able to collect a number of biomedical samples (mainly tissue samples)
for transport to the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW Designated
Laboratories. Consent for this procedure was obtained from the next-of-kin of
Ms Sturgess, and the activity was carried out in compliance with the United Kingdom
Human Tissue Act.
6. The team requested and received splits of biomedical samples collected by the British
authorities for delivery to the OPCW Laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW
Designated Laboratories. This was done for the purposes of comparison and in order
to verify the analysis conducted by the United Kingdom.

[gringo]

     Continued below; Where does the Noivichok get identified?

7. The team was briefed on the identity of the toxic chemical identified by the United
Kingdom and was able to review analytical results and data from the chemical
analysis of biomedical samples collected from the affected individuals by the British
authorities.
8. The results of the analysis of biomedical samples conducted by OPCW Designated
Laboratories demonstrate that Mr Charles Rowley and Ms Dawn Sturgess were
exposed to and intoxicated by this toxic chemical.
9. During the second deployment, the team collected a sample of the contents of a small
bottle that the police seized as a suspect item from the house of Charles Rowley in
Amesbury.
10. The results of the analysis of this environmental sample conducted by OPCW
Designated Laboratories show that the sample consists of the toxic chemical at a
concentration of 97-98%. The sample is therefore considered a neat agent of high
purity. The OPCW Designated Laboratories also identified a number of impurities
constituting the remaining 2-3% of the sample.
11. The results of the analysis conducted by OPCW Designated Laboratories of
environmental and biomedical samples collected by the OPCW team confirm the
findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that
intoxicated Mr Charles Rowley and Ms Dawn Sturgess. The toxic chemical
compound, which displays the toxic properties of a nerve agent, is the same toxic
chemical that was found in the biomedical and environmental samples relating to the
poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Mr Nicholas Bailey on 4 March 2018 in
Salisbury (S/1612/2018, dated 12 April 2018).
12. Due to the unknown storage conditions of the small bottle found in the house of
Mr Rowley and the fact that the environmental samples analysed in relation to the
poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Mr Nicholas Bailey were exposed to the
environment and moisture, the impurity profiles of the samples available to the
OPCW do not make it possible to draw conclusions as to whether the samples are
from the same synthesis batch.
13. The name and structure of the identified toxic chemical are contained in the full
classified report of the Secretariat, available to all States Parties.

[David1819]

Ah yes. Two GRU agents just so happened to book two return flights under false passports, four days prior to the attack leaving the same night of the attack and they just so happened to be in Salisbury that day.

 

[David1819]

Where you looked and lo and behold-it was there! That is an easily identifiable lie, David. Show us the OPCW report, David, where Novichok is identified. You can't. There isn't one.

Here it is -

“Federal Republic of Germany confirm that the biomarkers of the cholinesterase inhibitor found in Mr Navalny’s blood and urine samples have similar structural characteristics as the toxic chemicals belonging to schedules 1.A.14 and 1.A.15 “

https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2020/10/opcw-issues-report-technical-assistance-requested-germany

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019/12/s-1820-2019%28e%29.pdf

1.A.15 is Methyl-(bis(diethylamino)methylene)phosphonamidofluoridate which is a Novichok type agent.

The reports list the actual chemical nomenclature name for the Novichok agent. Specifics are very important, It would very unprofessional to use an umbrella term like Novichok that applies to a family of agents.

[gringo]

     Changing your lie now are you. "I looked and lo and behold..."  The report you have referred to is the Navalny report, not Skripals. So, you accuse me of making things up by making things up yourself. The report you link to doesn't mention Novichok either, as you claimed. You are doing really badly here, David. If you knew how to make obvious inferences, you would also realise that the report you link to actually confirms that Novichok wasn't used on Navalny either.
     From the report;

  The results of the analysis by the OPCW designated laboratories of biomedical samples collected by the OPCW team and shared with the Federal Republic of Germany confirm that the biomarkers of the cholinesterase inhibitor found in Mr Navalny’s blood and urine samples have similar structural characteristics as the toxic chemicals belonging to schedules 1.A.14 and 1.A.15 that were added to the Annex on Chemicals to the Convention during the Twenty-Fourth Session of the Conference of the States Parties in November 2019. This cholinesterase inhibitor is not listed in the Annex on Chemicals to the Convention.[/color]

    1) As in Salisbury the German govt. asked only for technical assistance rather than a full FFM. Again, in light of the allegation being made, a breach of the CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) this is a remarkable response.
    2) As in Salisbury the OPCW merely "confirmed" the Germans findings.
    3) As in Salisbury, OPCW received samples whose entire chain of custody was with Western governments and intel agencies.
    4) The German govts "findings" were that the "biomarkers of the cholesterinase inhibitors" have "similar structural characteristics" to some scheduled toxic chemicals.
    5) Also, this cholesterinase inhibitor "is not listed in the annex on chemicals to the Convention".
    6) As in Salisbury, no independent investigation despite the gravity of the supposed allegations being made.

    What this means in plain English, David, and this can be easily inferred.
    The German government asked the OPCW to confirm the presence of a cholerestinase inhibitor. They also asked the OPCW to "confirm" that this substance had "similar structural characteristics" to some scheduled toxic substances. It was also confirmed that the substance identified by the German government was not a banned substance.
     The OPCW have confirmed that no banned substances were used. By definition, no novichok agent was used. The whole class of Novichok is banned under a catch all term of the CWC.
     The German and UK gov have used media to spread a nonsense story. The OPCW were just useful stooges in the deception. OPCW have given the assistance asked of them. They haven't lied. The UK and German governments have spun the story to convince people of Novichok use, when the OPCW haven't said this.
    Had the UK and German governments really believed that Russia had committed these "attacks" then they would have requested a Fact Finding Mission of the OPCW. The impact of this investigation on Russia would be catastrophic, if true.
    Similar structural characteristics-not listed

    As I have said, David. There is absolutely zero evidence of a Novichok class agent being used in Salisbury or against Navalny. You are unable to show any evidence because there is none. There is only propaganda. Neither OPCW nor Porton Down scientists have ever alleged that a Novichok class agent was used. You are unable to recognise this fact, because you are so convinced after the lie has been repeated so many times.
     Your initial lie, anyway, discredits all you say. You looked into the OPCW reports on Salisbury and "lo and behold..."
     You cannot even demonstrate that Novichok was ever used. There is no independent official statement or confirmation of it ever being used. There are only vaguely worded allegations by western politicians parroted by western media. Lots of noise but nothing of substance behind the noise. 
     

[David1819]

     Changing your lie now are you. "I looked and lo and behold..."  The report you have referred to is the Navalny report, not Skripals.

I said - "You claimed there was "zero mentions" of Novichok in the OPCW reports" I never specified in regards to what case.

      As I have said, David. There is absolutely zero evidence of a Novichok class agent being used in Salisbury or against Navalny. You are unable to show any evidence because there is none.
     

There is evidence, and I have shown it. If you want to live in a fantasy world of denial, that is not my problem.

[David1819]

NGB, is Gringos view on Salisbury part of the 96.5% of things you agree with him on?

The CPS have filed charges against Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. If for argument sake they were extradited and you were representing them. Would you be confident of an acquittal?

[Roch]

NGB, is Gringos view on Salisbury part of the 96.5% of things you agree with him on?

The CPS have filed charges against Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. If for argument sake they were extradited and you were representing them. Would you be confident of an acquittal?

With Zoso as prosecution barrister and you as prosecution junior counsel?

[gringo]

I said - "You claimed there was "zero mentions" of Novichok in the OPCW reports" I never specified in regards to what case.

There is evidence, and I have shown it. If you want to live in a fantasy world of denial, that is not my problem.

    It doesn't matter which case because it isn't mentioned in either case. You have still shown zero mentions of Novichok. What you have shown is the OPCW confirming that no banned/listed agent was used. Do you know what "similar" means? A "similar" structure. The fantasy world of denial is all yours, David. OPCW have never alleged any banned nerve/chemical agent use in Salisbury, Amesbury or on the Navalny case. You haven't shown anything-there is nothing to show. OPCW only confirmed the presence of an un-named agent, as requested by UK and Germany. The Novichok tale is pure invention.

     Why, do you think, the UK and German governments only requested "Technical Assistance" rather than asking for a full "Fact Finding Mission"? A chemical weapons attack would demand nothing less. The actions taken by the UK and German government fall way short of what should be expected had Russia really used chemical weapons. The story is ludicrous and an invention for propaganda purposes.
     If you were honest with yourself, David, you would recognise that the whole Skripal/Novichok affair is completely evidence free. A lot of noise and propaganda, un-evidenced claims via the media but no actual evidence has been presented. None at all.
     Look up the differences between (TAV)-Technical Assistance Visit and (FFM)-Full Fact Finding Mission. Then ask yourself some obvious questions.

     

   
     
     
     

[David1819]

With Zoso as prosecution barrister and you as prosecution junior counsel?

The CPS have actually pressed charges against the two agents and issued an arrest warrent on INTERPOL. So no.

[gringo]

    Let's imagine that Peter comes across the dead body of John. Peter immediately begins to accuse Paul(who he hates) of murder, claiming that Paul had given John a lethal dose of heroin. Peter spreads this tale around but some begin to doubt and question the truth of the allegation.
     Why hasn't Peter called in the police to investigate? they ask. A serious allegation, such as Peter is making against Paul demands nothing less. Peter, aware that he has no evidence to back up his invented claims, needs a solution.
      Knowing that John used codeine as a painkiller, Peter gathered some samples himself and sent them to a forensic science lab, along with a few questions/requests?
     He asked the scientists to confirm his own earlier findings of the presence of opioids(specifically codeine). His findings were to be kept confidential and he sought only confirmation of his findings. Was an opioid present? Was it the same opioid that I asked you to confirm?
     Meanwhile Peter continued his slanderous accusations against Paul. The newspapers that Peter owned churned out stories about the evil Paul. The forensic scientists confirmed the findings of Peter(which were to remain confidential). Many then believed that the forensic scientists had confirmed that John had been killed by a heroin overdose given to him by Paul.
     Now replace John with Skripal/Navalny, the police with the OPCW, Peter with the UK/German government and Paul with Russia. Nobody has ever shown, or come close to showing, that Paul gave John a heroin overdose. The police/OPCW have remained silent and taken no action.

     

[gringo]

     Do you know what a cholesterinase inhibitor is? That is all that has been confirmed.
     How would you describe Novichok in a report? As a Cholerestinase inhibitor? or as a "nerve agent"? Strange choice of language for the world's "most deadly nerve agent", especially from the international body whose remit is to;
    "achieve a world permanently free of chemical weapons and to contribute to international security and stability, general and complete disarmament"
     You believe because you want to. You seek confirmation bias rather than questioning and critical thought. No evidence has ever been presented to support these allegations. If you were objective, you would recognise this undeniable truth.
     The dogs that didn't bark tell a bigger tale than the yapping lapdogs.

[David1819]

I am trying to picture the defences closing arguments -

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. My clients Mr Chepiga Mr Mishkin are nothing but victims of a rush to judgment. Simple tourists wanting to see Sailsbury Cathedral. Who dosen't book a flight from Moscow to London just to see Salisbury Cathedral?

My clients booked their tickets on March 1st the day before they left because they were so eager to see its 120 meter spire! they couldn't wait. Hence why they paid two visits to Salisbury. The state alleges the visit on March the 3rd was a reconnaissance mission for the attack the following day, on the contrary they just needed to have a second look of the Cathedral.

The state alleges that the CCTV of them at Fisherton Street that leads to Skripals house, almost two miles in the opposite direction from Sailsbury Cathedral is damning, but they are merely tourists lost on there way. Lost on their way at the wrong place at the wrong time. Mr Chepiga Mr Mishkin are in-fact almost victims themselves as they were so close to the location of the the expose of chemicals. They flew home that same night unaware of the rush to judgement that would be later put on them.

Yes, it is true my clients are decorated members of the GRU but that does not mean they cannot go on vacation for a weekend. They travelled under the aliases Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov complete with false passports all for the fun of it. Mr Chepiga Mr Mishkin even looked in a shop window as tourists do.

If they looked into a shop the charges must drop!