Brexit, for once some facts.

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,196
30,601
We have no proof New Zealand exists without visiting it ?
Yes we have. There's an abundance of photographs and specimens of species that exist nowhere else on earth, so there must be a land containing them. A huge number of crews and passengers of yachts, ships and planes have seen it and visited it and their instruments show that it is a separate land of two main islands east of Australia in the Pacific. Member Anotherkiwi comes from there and I've got NZ members entered on the members map so it has to be there!

I dare you to stand in front of the All Blacks and say New Zealand doesn't exist!

No proof man has landed on moon.
Perhaps the best proof is that the Russians have thoroughly surveyed all round the moon in minute detail and not disputed the landings. Given the poor relations between them and the Americans I'm sure they'd soon have exposed the myth if it was such.
.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,196
30,601
"No. In Salisbury they either found something, or may have found something, or may not have found something. You don't know that Novichok was found. They announced it was Novichok days before Porton Down were even asked to identify it. Porton Down had to have their arm twisted to reluctantly agree it was of a Novichok "type" "

Flecc have you got a source for this information ?
All posted a little earlier in this subject in this thread. Presumably you've been ignoring replies?
.
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
Yes we have. There's an abundance of photographs and specimens of species that exist nowhere else on earth, so there must be a land containing them. A huge number of crews of yachts and ships have seen it and visited it and their instruments show that it is a separate land of two main islands east of Australia in the Pacific. Member Anotherkiwi comes from there and I've got NZ members entered on the members map so it has to be there!



Perhaps the best proof is that the Russians have thoroughly surveyed all round the moon in minute detail and not disputed the landings. Given the poor relations between them and the Americans I'm sure they'd soon have exposed the myth of it was such.
.
Photographs could be of anything, all you have supplied is evidence..not proof...and your point re Russia not disputing fact is circumstantial at best.
That's not proof at all.
In 50's we only had evidence suggesting a link between smoking and lung cancer. Its only recently we,ve arrived at proof.
You have little proof of anything...if you question it enough. Only evidence suggesting.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: flecc

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
We have no proof New Zealand exists without visiting it ? No proof man has landed on moon. No proof CIA didn't plan twin towers. We have evidence suggesting the truth, no more on hundreds of things.

My grandad insisted all his life man hadn't walked on moon ...perhaps he was right.
Actually since my cousin resided in New Zealand I take that as Proof.
Not sure where you are going with the other two statements,but since there is no reason to care one way or the other, and the consequences of not being interested are Zilch,it doesn't matter does it?

But think for a moment, where Russia and this poisoning is concerned, there could be very serious consequences indeed.
Proceeding with extreme caution would have been a much wiser course, but someone wanted to stoke up public anger to gain support.
And quite simply there is definite evidence of that!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
All posted a little earlier in this subject in this thread. Presumably you've been ignoring replies?
.
No, I read it, dont believe you quoted a source first time. So what is the source ? A paper ? First hand account ? You know an investigator at Portland down. The proof problem cuts both ways flecc. Sorry, I dont believe your quote.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: robdon

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
Actually since my cousin resided in New Zealand I take that as Proof.
Not sure where you are going with the other two statements,but since there is no reason to care one way or the other, and the consequences of not being interested are Zilch,it doesn't matter does it?

But think for a moment, where Russia and this poisoning is concerned, there could be very serious consequences indeed.
Proceeding with extreme caution would have been a much wiser course, but someone wanted to stoke up public anger to gain support.
And quite simply there is definite evidence of that!
And doing nothing could aswell. Your reasoning is exactly why I think May knows. This isn't Argentina she,s arguing with.
Have you visited your cousin in NZ ? Could all be just a trick OG. May be he/ she has simply gone to live in York or somewhere. That's not definitive proof at all. We can question anything, proof is a very elusive concept.
 
Last edited:

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
And doing nothing could aswell.
Well they seemed happy to do that on thirteen other occasions where they couldn't wring an advantage from taking action, and the last but one refused the coroner an enquiry no less than FOUR times.
Are you saying they were wrong?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
Well they seemed happy to do that on thirteen other occasions where they couldn't wring an advantage from taking action, and the last but one refused the coroner an enquiry no less than FOUR times.
Are you saying they were wrong?
That's all completely different to contradicting suggested evidence for this case.

As for your question, I have no idea. My opinion is whilst killings have been stranglings, falls and apparent suicides. ( a suicide with 10 wound sites?) powers that be have been happy to let it go but Novichok on streets is a step too far. ( only my opinion)
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: robdon

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,196
30,601
Photographs could be of anything, all you have supplied is evidence..not proof...
Utter nonsense, the vast numbers of people involved in New Zealand over time, the unique species, the satellite photos of Earth from several nations, the vast amount of scientific data on the earth, the fact you or I or anyone else can go there at will are all absolute proof of the existence of New Zealand.

How can you compare the truth of New Zealand's existence with the truth of what a politician says? Your arguments like this one are getting so silly now that I will not respond again until you become more rational.
.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
Utter nonsense, the vast numbers of people involved in New Zealand over time, the unique species, the satellite photos of Earth from several nations, the vast amount of scientific data on the earth, the fact you or I or anyone else can go there at will are all absolute proof of the existence of New Zealand.

How can you compare the truth of New Zealand's existence with the truth of what a politician says? Your arguments like this one are getting so silly now that I will not respond again until you become more rational.
.
Yes,my anology is extreme but you get my point.Proof is very hard to achieve.
You have not quoted a source for your quote ??? ( Portland down getting arms twisted and officials reporting Novichok prior to investigation by PD ?)
The only place I,ve read that is on here ???

Since you haven't offered a source for your quote I,ll assume its an opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: robdon

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,196
30,601
No, I read it, dont believe you quoted a source first time. So what is the source ? A paper ? First hand account ? You know an investigator at Portland down. The proof problem cuts both ways flecc. Sorry, I dont believe your quote.
The source was previously quoted and linked to, it was a leak from a friend at Porton Down to one of our ex diplomats Craig Murray. Here's a link.

In sequence the government and prime minister in person said immediately after the poisoning that Novichok was used. Then a few days later at the weekend the government announced that Porton Down was to be asked to identify the poison used. Then of course Craig Murray's revelation that all Porton Down would very reluctantly agree to was the "of a type" statement by government but wouldn't say that themselves.

Little wonder the Russians were able to accuse us of staging it when the PM said she knew what it was before the lab had seen it!
.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
The source was previously quoted and linked to, it was a leak from a friend at Porton Down to one of our ex diplomats Craig Murray.

In sequence the government and prime minister in person said immediately after the poisoning that Novichok was used. Then a few days later at the weekend the government announced that Porton Down was to be asked to identify the poison used. Then of course Craig Murray's revelation that all Porton Down would very reluctantly agree to was the "of a type" statement by government but wouldn't say that themselves.

Little wonder the Russians were able to accuse us of staging it when the PM said she knew what it was before the lab had seen it!
.
Sorry Flecc I cant differentiate between your quote and ordinary text in here?
Are you saying this revelation was from a friend or written in a journal, web site or paper. I cant really see.

And BTW Novichok was developed in Russia but tested in Uzbekistan. ( from an Article in Guardian by Craig Murray)
"Novichok was developed at a laboratory complex in Shikhany, in central Russia, according to a British weapons expert, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, and a Russian chemist involved in the chemical weapons programme, Vil Mirzayanov, who later defected to the US. Mirzayanov said the novichok was tested at Nukus, in Uzbekistan."

Only quote I can find from Craig Murray is saying have some scepticism towards UK, not at all as you describe it. And since he was our representative over seeing destruction of Nerve agents in Nukus he probably has a vested interest in denying their current existence. ( ie, if they exist he didn't really do his job properly)


" Little wonder the Russians were able to accuse us of staging it when the PM said she knew what it was before the lab had seen it! "

This statement is completely wrong flecc.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: robdon

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,196
30,601
Sorry Flecc I cant differentiate between your quote and ordinary text in here?
Are you saying this revelation was from a friend or written in a journal, web site or paper. I cant really see.
I've added one of the links to Craig Murray's statement, see above. As you'll see it was common knowledge and announced by the national news. How you missed it at the time I can't imagine.
.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
That's all completely different to contradicting suggested evidence for this case.

As for your question, I have no idea. My opinion is whilst killings have been stranglings, falls and apparent suicides. ( a suicide with 10 wound sites?) powers that be have been happy to let it go but Novichok on streets is a step too far. ( only my opinion)
What it indicates if you care to think about it is that the Government had the opportunity to take similar action before, but didn't do so.
It didn't suit their agenda,even if as you are so sure, they had physical evidence that should have led to the action we have now.
Let's simplify it further
They had nothing to gain before
This time they had something to gain
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
Semitic
sɪˈmɪtɪk/
adjective
  1. 1.
    relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
  2. 2.
    relating to the peoples who speak Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.
As usual a perfectly good word with a nice solid meaning has been corrupted and made to mean something completely different. Palestinians are part of the Semetic people, I think Mr Corbin and others may object to the way one part of the Semetic people have been treating another part of the Semetic people since about 1967? That would make him anti-Israelien internal policy, I doubt that he has problems with the Jewish religion?
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
I've added one of the links to Craig Murray's statement, see above. As you'll see it was common knowledge and announced by the national news. How you missed it at the time I can't imagine.
.
So in effect your judgement of May, regards speaking before knowing facts, is based on the opinion of Craig Murray, who was forced to resign in 2004 as an ambassador in USSR. Since when he has become a liberal mp and actually knows no more about current situation than you or I. I choose not to believe Craig Murray, he has vested interests against Tories and May. By all means you believe , personally I do not. He is expressing an opinion ,and even that cynical opinion of our government is not quite as you described with regards to sequencing. I,ve checked the dates. Portland Down had samples 4 days before May's announcement.

Craig Murray even describes himself as a political activist blogger these days.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: robdon

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
Semitic
sɪˈmɪtɪk/
adjective
  1. 1.
    relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
  2. 2.
    relating to the peoples who speak Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.
As usual a perfectly good word with a nice solid meaning has been corrupted and made to mean something completely different. Palestinians are part of the Semetic people, I think Mr Corbin and others may object to the way one part of the Semetic people have been treating another part of the Semetic people since about 1967? That would make him anti-Israelien internal policy, I doubt that he has problems with the Jewish religion?
Perhaps not but rightly or wrongly he is pro Palestinian.( but perhaps he should be ? Can you be pro Palestine without being anti Jew ???)

As labour leader he just should not be going there. Its lose lose and unfortunately he,s lost.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: robdon

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
See religion does work....all you non believers.....I went to church today and ......SPURS BEAT CHELSEA AT HOME.
It’s not life or death it’s more important than that!!!!!
KudosDave
What about Chelsea supporters' prayers ?
 
Last edited:

Advertisers