Brexit, for once some facts.

[tillson]

Questions remain

1. Where are the missing son and partner that were living in the house
2. Who were the so called pair who "delivered the parcel from Syria"
3. Why would it be in Syria in the first place?
   
4. What became of the missing cat?
5. Why did it not turn out to be lethal?

But lets ignore all that, too much effort, and we have a Bogy man we can blame personally.

6. Where is the Detective Sergeant who just happened to be passing the scene?

7. After the two alleged victims had spent the afternoon, driving, drinking in a pub, eating a meal in a restaurant and walking around town with Russian manufactured lethal nerve agent all over their hands, why was the Detective Sergeant the only third party to become contaminated?

8. Is the government trying to pull our trousers down and have our balls on a builders trowel?

I can only answer one of these questions.

 

[Danidl]

You really are easily pleased. That says absolutely nothing, merely says it confirms the UK's findings. Since the UK's findings amount to saying it must have been the Russians, there's still no evidence.

I appreciate they can't publish the formula, but why haven't they said Novichok? I'll tell you why, it's becauses none of the OPCW scientists have said it is, so the press office daren't say it is in case a scientist breaks ranks and leaks the truth, just as happened at Porton Down.

What idiots our politicians are, not content with being unable to do anything about the Crimea or Russian assistance to Syria, they accuse Russia of a poisoning with no evidence and give Russia the propaganda upper hand. All Russia needs do is what they've done, say "prove it, give us some samples". The fact that we haven't done so is further proof that we have no evidence.
.

Flecc your utterances here lack your customary rigour. From my reading the external laboratories have confirmed that the chemical agent was a nerve agent of a type identified by the uks laboratories. That is all they said and indeed can say . Now I am not privy to the amount of nerve agent recovered so it is entirely feasible that there was not enough to supply to all and sundry. It is unlikely to be a few litres and more likely to be milligrams or micrograms.
Why on earth would they include the Russians in the distribution list. ..its not like a drunk driving charge or even a sports doping allegation where there is 5 litres of the stuff in the client
Novichok is unlikely to be listed in the MIMs database of recognised and patented medical compounds so they cannot claim it is such...

 

[oldgroaner]

8. Is the government trying to pull our trousers down and have our balls on a builders trowel?

I can only answer one of these questions.

I trust it's this one and hopefully NOT from personal experience?
But I do agree with your post

 

[oldgroaner]

Flecc your utterances here lack your customary rigour. From my reading the external laboratories have confirmed that the chemical agent was a nerve agent of a type identified by the uks laboratories. That is all they said and indeed can say . Now I am not privy to the amount of nerve agent recovered so it is entirely feasible that there was not enough to supply to all and sundry. It is unlikely to be a few litres and more likely to be milligrams or micrograms.
Why on earth would they include the Russians in the distribution list. ..its not like a drunk driving charge or even a sports doping allegation where there is 5 litres of the stuff in the client
Novichok is unlikely to be listed in the MIMs database of recognised and patented medical compounds so they cannot claim it is such...

Hang on there the samples submitted were contaminated Blood samples, there would surely be more than enough to go round.

The Doctors would have had a field day, it would have been shades of the Tony Hancock sketch the Blood Donor when he learned they wanted a Pint from him

"A pint!" he gasped
"That's practically an ARMFUL!"

 

[flecc]

the external laboratories have confirmed that the chemical agent was a nerve agent of a type identified by the uks laboratories.

I am applying my customary rigour by challenging these vague assertions. As I posted, all the OPCW is saying is that they agree with the UK. That is not in any way evidence or confirmation of the existence of evidence.

Why on earth would they include the Russians in the distribution list. ..its not like a drunk driving charge or even a sports doping allegation

It is exactly like those! One can't accuse but refuse any evidence whatsoever to back up the assertion, then punish. They claim they had enough material to supply Porton Down and four other laboratories, so Russia could easily have been given a sample in lieu of one of the other labs.
.

 

[Danidl]

Hang on there the samples submitted were contaminated Blood samples, there would surely be more than enough to go round.

The Doctors would have had a field day, it would have been shades of the Tony Hancock sketch the Blood Donor when he learned they wanted a Pint from him

"A pint!" he gasped
"That's practically an ARMFUL!"

How do you know that it was blood samples? . In which case rather than being the actual chemical agent they would be metalytes from reactions which had occured not the basic agent. That would make identification even more difficult even if it then supplied plenty of sample material.

 

[oldgroaner]

I am applying my customary rigour by challenging these vague assertions. As I posted, all the OPCW is saying is that they agree with the UK. That is not in any way evidence or confirmation of the existence of evidence.



It is exactly like those! One can't accuse but refuse any evidence whatsoever to back up the assertion, then punish. They claim they had enough material to supply Porton Down and four other laboratories, so Russia could easily have been given a sample in lieu of one of the other labs.
.

Doesn't anyone else find it worrying that no less than FOUR other laboratories can recognise Novichoc, and therefore have the knowledge to sythesise it?
Who are these people and where are they?
Is it as common as chips?
Next thing you know Boots the Chemists will be able to order you some!
The width and extent of knowledge about it makes the blame Putin argument even less likely.

 

[oldgroaner]

How do you know that it was blood samples? . In which case rather than being the actual chemical agent they would be metalytes from reactions which had occured not the basic agent. That would make identification even more difficult even if it then supplied plenty of sample material.

Answer this question would this agency accept purified samples that could be planted rather than want to examine the Blood of the Victims?
What sort of impartiality is that if they take our word as honest?
Sorry that isn't the way for an "Impartial" inspector to work, as we could have simply handed over Novichoc we had made ourselves.

It it were me I would have wanted the DNA records of the Victims and seen them checked, so the source was estavlished before accepting the Blood samples, which I would check against their DNA, then I would have extracted whatever I needed from them to check against the specification of the Novichoc family of types.
Anything else would be amateur and unprofessional.
You have to prove your evidence identifies with the victim and do the testing yourself for it to be relaible evidence at all.

Clause 12 in their report is interesting

12. The name and structure of the identified toxic chemical
are contained in the full classified report of the Secretariat, available to States Parties.

I would just love to know how many "States parties" are on that list as worthy of seeing the full report, as they obviously must already know how to make Novichek?
1 to 10? or 1 to 100, ? no wonder we are only getting a drip feed of information , the Government wouldn't want people to know just how many sources other than Russia this poison can come from, it would spoil the whole thing!

 

[flecc]

Doesn't anyone else find it worrying that no less than FOUR other laboratories can recognise Novichoc, and therefore have the knowledge to sythesise it?
Who are these people and where are they?
Is it as common as chips?
Next thing you know Boots the Chemists will be able to order you some!
The width and extent of knowledge about it makes the blame Putin argument even less likely.

This is a repeat of the early assertions made about the impossibility of obtaining polonium 210 in the Livinenko case.

It was in fact easily available through the normal post from known suppliers, either legally or illegally. I had licenced access to it for 22 years and it was widely used by daily newspaper producers as an essential production aid at the time.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

OnTrump's Twitter feed this character nailed him

"You have the mentality of a 10 year old trying to justify going through his Mom’s purse looking for $. You gave Assad lots of time to move his planes to Russian bases - AGAIN. F*****g Treasonweasel idiot!
And this

And here from the Trump Twitter feed itself a Russian respose

 

[Danidl]

You have not answered my

Answer this question would this agency accept purified samples that could be planted rather than want to examine the Blood of the Victims?
What sort of impartiality is that if they take our word as honest?
Sorry that isn't the way for an "Impartial" inspector to work, as we could have simply handed over Novichoc we had made ourselves.

It it were me I would have wanted the DNA records of the Victims and seen them checked, so the source was estavlished before accepting the Blood samples, which I would check against their DNA, then I would have extracted whatever I needed from them to check against the specification of the Novichoc family of types.
Anything else would be amateur and unprofessional.
You have to prove your evidence identifies with the victim and do the testing yourself for it to be relaible evidence at all.

Clause 12 in their report is interesting

12. The name and structure of the identified toxic chemical
are contained in the full classified report of the Secretariat, available to States Parties.

I would just love to know how many "States parties" are on that list as worthy of seeing the full report, as they obviously must already know how to make Novichek?
1 to 10? or 1 to 100, ? no wonder we are only getting a drip feed of information , the Government wouldn't want people to know just how many sources other than Russia this poison can come from, it would spoil the whole thing!

You have not answered my question. You have proposed a scenario, which though logical, and which if it were related to the polonium incident, would be relevent, but not to a biological agent

 

[oldgroaner]

You have not answered my

You have not answered my question. You have proposed a scenario, which though logical, and which if it were related to the polonium incident, would be relevent, but not to a biological agent

And why not?

 

[Danidl]

And why not?

You have stated as a matter of fact that blood samples were the form supplied. Do you know that for a fact?

 

[Danidl]

You have stated as a matter of fact that blood samples were the form supplied. Do you know that for a fact?

In the case of an element it will not undergo metabolic alterations, and it's presence and the ratio of other isotopes can be used to identify the reactor.

 

[oldgroaner]

You have stated as a matter of fact that blood samples were the form supplied. Do you know that for a fact?

How else could the material be extracted that is traceable to the victim? vomit or Sputum would hardly fit the bill, but blood samples would be available for days after the event.
and of course there is actual evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/22/salisbury-attack-medical-staff-contacted-police-when-antidotes-failed-to-work
Judge gives permission for blood samples to be taken from the Skripals
Chemical weapons expert can carry out tests on blood from pair who both remain in a coma

 

[Zlatan]

You have stated as a matter of fact that blood samples were the form supplied. Do you know that for a fact?

OG
If you had read the summary which I posted a part of you would be able to answer that. Your quote, which BTW ,I had read, is taken from a media publication. There is a pdf version available ,directly from OPCW ,which explains both procedures and a brief summary of findings.( and a comment that only full conclusions available to state representatives,). Find the pdf and read it.
The comment about purity is revealing.
And the fact 4 independent labs, in 4 separate countries reached identical conclusions. It was novichok.Fact.

Yes, the OPCW do not make claims about its origin. They cant..
And please lets leave the insults behind us.( I was not asleep)

 

[oldgroaner]

OG
If you had read the summary which I posted a part of you would be able to answer that. Your quote, which BTW ,I had read, is taken from a media publication. There is a pdf version available ,directly from OPCW ,which explains both procedures and a brief summary of findings.( and a comment that only full conclusions available to state representatives,). Find the pdf and read it.
The comment about purity is revealing.

No, it was taken from the PDF, so pull the other one! I suggest you take your own advice and read it again.

 

[oldgroaner]

OG
If you had read the summary which I posted a part of you would be able to answer that. Your quote, which BTW ,I had read, is taken from a media publication. There is a pdf version available ,directly from OPCW ,which explains both procedures and a brief summary of findings.( and a comment that only full conclusions available to state representatives,). Find the pdf and read it.
The comment about purity is revealing.
And the fact 4 independent labs, in 4 separate countries reached identical conclusions. It was novichok.Fact.

Yes, the OPCW do not make claims about its origin. They cant..
And please lets leave the insults behind us.( I was not asleep)

Feel free to leave your insults behind by all means, ask yourself this, if labs in 4 separate countries know what Novicheck is why can it only come from Russia?
And if it was so pure why wasn't it lethal?
This was the pdf I quoted
https://20years.opcw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/s-1612-2018e.pdf
Extract here
"
4.The team was able to collect blood samples
from the three affected individuals under
full chain of custody for delivery to the OP
CW Laboratory and subsequent analysis
by OPCW designated laboratories, and
conducted identification of the three
individuals against offi cial photo-ID documents.
5. The team was able to conduct on-site samp
ling of environmental samples under full
chain of custody at sites identified as possible hot-spots of residual contamination.
Samples were returned to the OPCW Laboratory for subsequent analysis by OPCW
designated laboratories.
6. The team requested and received splits of samples taken by British authorities for
delivery to the OPCW Laboratory in Rijswijk, the Netherlands, and subsequent
analysis by OPCW designated laboratories This was done for comparative purposes
and to verify the analysis of the United Kingdom.
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 chemical analysis of biomedical samples collected by the British
authorities from the a ffected individuals,
as well as from environmental samples collected on site.

Care to explain the context of this?

The team was briefed on the identity of the toxic chemical identified by the United
Kingdom and was able to review analytical results.

Are we to assume they didn't know beforehand? why would they need to be briefed on something they should already know and are allegedly they are familiar with?

This suggests at the very least the reason it has been described as "of a type"
So their conclusion was to go along with Porton Down's findings?
Fair enough if this was the first time it had been encountered, but it sure as hell blows a hole in pinning the blame on a country (among others) because it "could" do this
There is "No alternative explanation" from all that than that we really don't know who made, it but what the hell we have made our minds up, and remarkably quickly too before any really conclusive tests were made.
Of a type, eh? just as Cow Pox is of a type with Smallpox but not so dangerous.

 

[Zlatan]

No, it was taken from the PDF, so pull the other one! I suggest you take your own advice and read it again.

Can you supply a link so I can compare to mine. ( I can neither highlight sections or post links on this phone)
It appears to me we are reading different reports.?

 

[Zlatan]

Feel free to leave your insults behind by all means, ask yourself this, if labs in 4 separate countries know what Novicheck is why can it only come from Russia?
And if it was so pure why wasn't it lethal?

I,ve never said it must have come from Russia. Neither has OPCW, neither has Porton Down. BJ Macron,May etc etc etc have arrived at that conclusion taking into account lots of other evidence.
Please forward that link. I,d be interested in reading "your" version"..
OPCW are merely stating Porton Down were correct in their identifying the nerve agent.( which you,d decided was ??femytol or something)
It was novichok of a very pure nature. Fact.

And BTW being able to identify a Purdy shotgun does not mean you are capable or have desire to build one.