+ Reply to Thread
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst 1 5 15
Results 281 to 294 of 294

Thread: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

  1. Link to Post #281
    UK Avalon Member Frenchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th November 2014
    On the edge of the Atlantic
    Thanked 993 times in 285 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    Greetings Folks,
    Revelations: ' Casual bystanders , found Skripal's , just happens to be a Top Army Officer > Lt. Col. Alison McCourt is not just one random 'off-duty army nurse'.

    She is the Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army

    For this, been on quite a tour !

    First : http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=182390

    led to >


    From M.o.A. :-

    " We were right, it was Alison McCourt who was that "unknown military nurse" who, absolutely randomly, happened to be near the bench where #Skripals collapsed . Spire FM { Salsbury Radio station }alleges that it was her daughter Abigail alerted her, but no one mentioned her before ..."

    Here is the thing. Alison McCourt is not just one random 'off-duty army nurse'. She is the Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army in the rank of Colonel: LT. Col

    Colonel A L McCourt OBE ARRC QHN - Assistant Head Health Strategy / Chief Nursing Officer (Army) - Senior Health Advisor (Army) Department.

    Colonel McCourt was appointed Chief Nursing Officer on February 1 2018, just one month before the Skripal incident happened. Colonel McCourt lives in Larkhill, a garrison town some 11 miles from Salisbury. She is known to visit elsewhere.

    Now, why has Frenchy highlighted Larkhill ? .... 'cos amongst those [mostly] very astute subscribers to M.o.A., are these two 'Gems ' {I've not seen V for Vendetta}


    Lark Hill - as in "V for Vendetta" Lark Hill ?
    Posted by: c1ue | Jan 19, 2019 3:16:12 PM | 2
    One has to wonder at the threads that run through life. Larkhill ? This was the scene of the military run gruesome bio-warfare experiments that took place in 'V for Vendetta' where the director was a woman. All we need now are some red Carson roses somewhere in the scene.

    Posted by: Cliff | Jan 20, 2019 6:27:37 AM | 74


    from main article :-

    Isn't it an extremely unlikely coincidence that the first person who 'by chance' attends to the Skripals is the top nurse of the British army? An experienced officer, highly connected, who is also know for handling highly infectious patients? Who wrote the script for this enthralling saga (rec.)?

    This is one of the many, many 'coincidences', curiosities and lies that make the official Skripal poisoning narrative so unbelievable.

    I seem unable to open Tweets, so if another would , please ?

    Here's one way she could have made it on time:
    Posted by: Jetpack | Jan 19, 2019 3:39:34 PM | 7

    The daughter is what's known as a "cutout". You can't have the "nurse of all nurses" be the first on the scene. But, they didn't even bother with the daughter having to call mama at home. She was luckily "nearby", presumably lurking behind a tree.

    Posted by: Bart Hansen | Jan 19, 2019 8:30:25 PM | 35


    All you need to know ; )


    Posted by: Panopticon | Jan 20, 2019 3:36:13 AM | 62


    Now, in a different thread { T.I.'s } Petra & I were commenting regarding the ORCHESTRATION of Comprehensive organisation to enable millions of individuals, to be targetted...

    I don't normally swear, but ffs, the Whole bloody world is orchestrated, is there nothing which isn't intertwined .... ?


    Not directly related, but I provide, as it was in the comment section, & some people here might recognise the name ?

    " Just been over at The Grauniad and came across an and its involvement in the assassination of Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 other people in a mysterious 1961 plane crash: "

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

    Posted by: Ghost Ship | Jan 20, 2019 6:40:36 AM | 77
    Last edited by Frenchy; 20th January 2019 at 17:44.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Frenchy For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Hervé (20th January 2019), mountain_jim (21st January 2019), Paul (21st January 2019), Tintin (20th January 2019), viking (21st January 2019)

  3. Link to Post #282
    Avalon Member The Moss Trooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st May 2017
    Thanked 3,518 times in 502 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    It's all gone very quiet on the Skirpal front, hasn't it?

    I spotted this on the 29th December, and glad I saved it to my desktop, as it promptly disappeared after some 20 minutes or so. From the Daily Mail (I know, I know), maybe a Freudian slip? The article was a piece on a former GRU officer called Viktor Suvorov.

    The headline read:

    Quote Ex-Soviet spy-hunter who is the only known living defector from the GRU after Sergei Skripal was murdered earlier this year says he is living under TWO death sentences

    Then there was this on the 11th January, reportedly from Viktoria Skirpal, from the same 'news' paper:

    Quote 'Sergei is dead for sure': Novichok victim Skripal's niece Viktoria is convinced ex-Russian agent died from nerve agent attack and his death has been covered-up by British authorities
    • Viktoria Skripal claimed her uncle actually died when he was poisoned last year
    • Skripal said British may be covering up his death from a nerve agent
    • She gave interview to Russian state-broadcaster RT in which she made claims
    • Revealed earlier this month that Skripals are being hidden away by a MI5 team

    No official word of where, or how, Sergei Skripal is. As with the Gatwick drone fiasco, and a lot of false-flag events, it seems to go very quiet once the desired outcome is achieved............... Usually in the form of shaping the public narrative.

    Curiouser and curiouser!
    Last edited by The Moss Trooper; 16th June 2020 at 19:09. Reason: Correction & Addition

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Moss Trooper For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Tintin (8th March 2019), viking (21st January 2019)

  5. Link to Post #283
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 95,327 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    The case of the contaminated attic: Did Sergei Skripal accidentally poison himself?

    John Helmer Dances with Bears
    Thu, 17 Jan 2019 18:11 UTC

    The British state broadcaster BBC and other media have disclosed that the Salisbury house (lead image) owned by Sergei Skripal is to be partially demolished and rebuilt over the next four months.

    A Wiltshire Council notice to residents in the neighbourhood of the Skripal home is the source of the news reports. The January 4 notice, a media briefing by the Wiltshire Council, and a press release by a spokesman at the Ministry of Defence do not say how much of the house will be reconstructed. "We are working with the site owner, Wiltshire Council and other partners to ensure that the house will be fully repaired and returned to a fit state to live in," the anonymous Defence Ministry official was quoted as saying by the Salisbury Journal.

    The British Government, London and Wiltshire police, and media reports have claimed that a fast-acting, lethal nerve agent was administered to the handle of the front-door of the Skripal house eleven months ago, on March 4. The alleged attackers have been identified by Prime Minister Theresa May (lead image, left) as two Russians. No allegation nor evidence has been reported to date that they or their poison penetrated inside the Skripal residence.

    Two senior Wiltshire Council officials, Tracy Daszkiewicz, Director of Public Health and Protection, and Alistair Cunningham, coordinator of the recovery programme, were asked to clarify how much of the Skripal house will be replaced. Replying today through spokesman David Perrett, they said "there are no plans to demolish the property at 47 Christie Miller Road. The roof and garage roof are being removed and replaced."

    Because the front-door handle was the sole identified site of the attack, and decontamination has been under way for eleven months, the two officials were asked to explain their reason for the reconstruction:
    "Every decontamination site is different", Perrett responded.

    "Each one has a tailored decontamination plan. As you would expect this site is more complex than others... we are taking a highly precautionary approach and that is why the clean-up work is so extensive and meticulous. It is vitally important we are thorough on all the sites so that local residents can be fully confident that each one is safe when returned to use."
    Perrett added:
    "In the more contaminated sites some hard surfaces might be removed."
    Angus Macpherson, the Wiltshire police commissioner, told the press on Monday that Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who entered the Skripal house on the evening of the poison attack and who was hospitalized later for nerve agent exposure, returned to active duty this week. Bailey has told the BBC he has "lost everything" in his house. Commissioner Macpherson, together with Daszkiewicz and Cunningham, were asked to say if the Bailey house is also to be demolished and why. Through Perrett, they answered. "Sgt Bailey's house has been fully cleaned. There are no plans to demolish this property."

    Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia fell ill in the centre of Salisbury town several hours after leaving their home in the afternoon of March 4. They did not return to the house before they were hospitalized. A BBC reconstruction of their departure and the alleged door-handle attack was published on November 22. The BBC claims the door handle was sprayed with a nerve agent for "a matter of seconds"; and that minutes later Sergei Skripal touched the handle bare-handed, on his way out of the house. In the BBC reconstruction, Yulia Skripal was shown as wearing gloves and as not touching the door-handle.

    BBC photographic reconstruction of the Skripal front-door handle at the alleged instant of attack. © BBC

    Both Skripals have been released from hospital. Public statements, including one filmed appearance and telephone calls, have been made by Yulia. Sergei has made no statement; no telephonic or photographic evidence of his condition has been published.

    The Skripal poisoning case, and Prime Minister May's charge that Russian government agents were to blame, have triggered international concern and sanctions against the Russian state. According to May's House of Commons statement on March 14, "there is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian State was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter - and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey." No British prosecution indictment of attempted murder has been presented to a court nor have charges of a criminal conspiracy by the Russians been tested by a British judge.

    In September, when decontamination works were under way at the Skripal home, the Guardian reported: "there has been speculation that the house may be knocked down but it is not believed a final decision has been made on its long-term future." The Wiltshire Council statements this morning suggest the final decision has been made to reconstruct the Skripal house and to "clean" the Bailey house.

    In November, during the BBC interview with Bailey, the police detective said that accompanied by at least one, possibly two other police officers, garbed in "full forensic suits" with gloves and face masks, he had inspected the Skripal house late in the evening of March 4. According to Bailey, "the house was in darkness. It just looked normal. There was nothing untoward". The police trio left the house, took off their forensic gear, "bagged them up", and returned to the police station.

    Left: Wiltshire police stand guard, unprotected, in front of the poisoned door-handle; Skripal's study is to the right of the door. Right: Sgt Bailey's police car being examined by investigators.

    Bailey subsequently reported to the BBC that "everything the kids owned, we lost all that, the cars, we lost everything."

    There has been no report that the Wiltshire police station where Bailey's forensic suit, gloves and mask were returned before he went home and then developed symptoms requiring hospitalization, has been either decontaminated or demolished. None of the locations where the Skripals spent time before their collapse, including a car park, pub, and restaurant has been demolished. Local authorities have issued bulletins confirming that following expert checks and decontamination procedures, they are safe for public use.

    The London hotel, where the alleged Russian poison attackers stayed together before they travelled to Salisbury for their alleged attack, has also been reported by the police and media to have revealed nerve agent traces. "Novichok was found in bedroom", reported the Telegraph last September.

    The newspaper also reported that no part of the hotel has been demolished.

    According to Perrett of the Wiltshire Council, at the present time "there are only two remaining sites being cleaned, Mr Skripal's house at Christie Miller Road, Salisbury, and Charlie Rowley's residence at Muggleton Road, Amesbury." Rowley survived later exposure, on June 30, to the poison in a bottle which he found abandoned and took home. His partner, Dawn Sturgess, to whom Rowley presented the bottle, died following her exposure. "All other sites," said the Wiltshire Council spokesman, "have been cleaned and handed back to their owners."

    The destruction of the main roof of the Skripal house and of the roof above Skripal's study is the first evidence that the alleged nerve agent has been found in the interior, far beyond the range which the alleged Russian agents' spray could have penetrated. The demolition plan also covers areas of the interior which Bailey did not reach in his March 4 inspection.

    Forensic sources believe this is circumstantial evidence for two new conclusions. The first is that the poison was inside the Skripal house and inside Sergei Skripal's study before the alleged attack on the door handle. Until and unless the British authorities explain why they are demolishing the roofs and other interior property, which only Sergei Skripal, not Sgt Bailey, could have contaminated on March 4, the sources believe no other inference is probable.

    The second conclusion is that it was Skripal who exposed himself to a poison he was handling inside the house. That he did so by accident is likely; the accident theory was first reported here, on March 25, 2018.

    The only independent British investigator of the affair, Rob Slane, has announced that he is retiring from the case. Here is his last word. "Even as I was finishing this piece off, yet another round of nonsense was unleashed; this time, the news that the roof of 47 Christie Miller Road (including the roof of the study) is to be taken off and replaced. Remember, we're talking about a substance that can be cleansed with baby wipes. Remember, we're talking about a substance that apparently breaks down after 80 minutes of exposure to the air. But 11 months later, it is again so deadly, that a whole roof needs replacing! Of course the media is not bothering to ask the obvious questions about this action, such as: How exactly could the roof timbers have become contaminated? Who could have contaminated them? D.S. Bailey? But why would he have been in the attic? Why is the ceiling / roof in Zizzis [restaurant] not being replaced? Why has the roof in The Mill [pub] not been dismantled? What was really in the attic? Obvious questions, yet none of them will be asked.

    In conclusion, I think it abundantly clear that what we have been told about what took place on 4th March in the beautiful city of Salisbury is not, in fact, true. It is clear that something else happened, and much of what we have seen since then has been theatre and an attempt to cover up what actually took place."


    Skripal’s Salisbury home to be partly dismantled by British military

    What Role Did Integrity Initiative Play in Sergei Skripal Affair?
    Last edited by Hervé; 21st January 2019 at 20:21.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (21st January 2019), Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Deux Corbeaux (24th January 2019), Did You See Them (21st January 2019), Tintin (8th March 2019), viking (21st January 2019)

  7. Link to Post #284
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 95,327 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    Pure: Ten Points I Just Can’t Believe About the Official Skripal Narrative

    by Craig Murray
    7 Mar, 2019

    I still do not know what happened in the Skripal saga, which perhaps might more respectfully be termed the Sturgess saga. I cannot believe the Russian account of Boshirov and Petrov, because if those were their real identities, those identities would have been firmly established and displayed by now. But that does not mean they attempted to kill the Skripals, and there are many key elements to the official British account which are also simply incredible.

    Governments play dark games, and a dark game was played out in Salisbury which involved at least the British state, Russian agents (possibly on behalf of the state), Orbis Intelligence and the BBC. Anybody who believes it is simple to identify the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in this situation is a fool. When it comes to state actors and the intelligence services, frequently there are no “good guys”, as I personally witnessed from the inside over torture, extraordinary rendition and the illegal invasion of Iraq. But in the face of a massive media campaign to validate the British government story about the Skripals, here are ten of the things I do not believe in the official account:

    1) PURE
    This was the point that led me to return to the subject of the Skripals, even though it has brought me more abuse than I had received in my 15 year career as a whistleblower.

    A few months ago, I was in truth demoralised by the amount of abuse I was receiving about the collapse of the Russian identity story of Boshirov and Petrov. I had never claimed the poisoning, if any, was not carried out by Russians, only that there were many other possibilities. I understood the case against the Russian state is still far from established, whoever Boshirov and Petrov really are, and I did not (and do not) accept Bellingcat’s conjectures and dodgy evidence as conclusive identification. But I did not enjoy at all the constant online taunts, and therefore was not inclined to take the subject further.

    It is in this mood that I received more information from my original FCO source, who had told me, correctly, that Porton Down could not and would not attest that the “novichok” sample was made in Russia, and explained that the formulation “of a type developed by Russia” was an agreed Whitehall line to cover this up.

    She wanted to explain to me that the British government was pulling a similar trick over the use of the word “pure”. The OPCW report had concluded that the sample provided to them by the British government was “of high purity” with an “almost complete absence of impurities”. This had been spun by the British government as evidence that the novichok was “military grade” and could only be produced by a state.

    But actually that is not what the OPCW technical experts were attempting to signal. The sample provided to the OPCW had allegedly been swabbed from the Skripals’ door handle. It had been on that door handle for several days before it was allegedly discovered there. In that time it had been contacted allegedly by the hands of the Skripals and of DC Bailey, and the gloves of numerous investigators. It had of course been exposed to whatever film of dirt or dust was on the door handle. It had been exposed to whatever pollution was in the rain and whatever dust and pollen was blowing around. In these circumstances, it is incredible that the sample provided “had an almost complete absence of impurities”.

    A sample cannot have a complete absence of impurities after being on a used doorknob, outdoors, for several days. The sample provided was, on the contrary, straight out of a laboratory.

    The government’s contention that “almost complete absence of impurities” meant “military grade” was complete nonsense. There is no such thing as “military grade” novichok. It has never been issued to any military, anywhere. The novichok programme was designed to produce an organo-phosphate poison which could quickly be knocked up from readily available commercial ingredients. It was not part of an actual defence industry manufacturing programme.

    There is a final problem with the “of high purity” angle. First we had the Theresa May story that the “novichok” was extremely deadly, many times more deadly than VX, in minute traces. Then, when the Skripals did not die, it was explained to us that this was because it had degraded in the rain. This was famously put forward by Dan Kaszeta, formerly of US Intelligence and the White House and self-proclaimed chemical weapons expert – which expertise has been strenuously denied by real experts.

    What we did not know then, but we do know now, is that Kaszeta was secretly being paid to produce this propaganda by the British government via the Integrity Initiative.

    So the first thing I cannot believe is that the British government produced a sample with an “almost complete absence of impurities” from several days on the Skripals’ doorknob. Nor can I believe that if “extremely pure” the substance therefore was not fatal to the Skripals.

    2) Raising the Roof
    Three days ago Sky News had an outside broadcast from the front of the Skripals’ house in Salisbury, where they explained that the roof had been removed and replaced due to contamination with “novichok”.

    I cannot believe that a gel, allegedly smeared or painted onto the doorknob, migrated upwards to get into the roof of a two storey house, in such a manner that the roof had to be destroyed, but the house inbetween did not. As the MSM never questions the official narrative, there has never been an official answer as to how the gel got from the doorknob to the roof. Remember that traces of the “novichok” were allegedly found in a hotel room in Poplar, which is still in use as a hotel room and did not have to be destroyed, and an entire bottle of it was allegedly found in Charlie Rowley’s house, which has not had to be destroyed. Novichok was found in Zizzi’s restaurant, which did not have to be destroyed.

    So we are talking about novichok in threatening quantities – more than the traces allegedly found in the hotel in Poplar – being in the Skripals’ roof. How could this happen?

    As I said in the onset, I do not know what happened, I only know what I do not believe. There are theories that Skripal and his daughter might themselves have been involved with novichok in some way. On the face of it, its presence in their roof might support that theory.

    The second thing I do not believe is that the Skripals’ roof became contaminated by gel on their doorknob so that the roof had to be destroyed, whereas no other affected properties, nor the rest of the Skripals’ house, had to be destroyed.

    3) Nursing Care
    The very first person to discover the Skripals ill on a park bench in Salisbury just happened to be the Chief Nurse of the British Army, who chanced to be walking past them on her way back from a birthday party. How lucky was that? The odds are about the same as the chance of my vacuum cleaner breaking down just before James Dyson knocks at my door to ask for directions. There are very few people indeed in the UK trained to give nursing care to victims of chemical weapon attack, and of all the people who might have walked past, it just happened to be the most senior of them!

    The government is always trying to get good publicity for its armed forces, and you would think that the heroic role of its off-duty personnel in saving random poisoned Russian double agents they just happened to chance across, would have been proclaimed as a triumph for the British military. Yet it was kept secret for ten months. We were not told about the involvement of Colonel Alison McCourt until January of this year, when it came out by accident. Swollen with maternal pride, Col. McCourt nominated her daughter for an award from the local radio station for her role in helping give first aid to the Skripals, and young Abigail revealed her mother’s identity on local radio – and the fact her mother was there “with her” administering first aid.

    Even then, the compliant MSM played along, with the Guardian and Sky News both among those running stories emphasising entirely the Enid Blyton narrative of “plucky teenager saves the Skripals”, and scarcely mentioning the Army’s Chief Nurse who was looking after the Skripals “with little Abigail”.

    I want to emphasise again that Col. Alison McCourt is not the chief nurse of a particular unit or hospital, she is the Chief Nurse of the entire British Army. Her presence was kept entirely quiet by the media for ten months, when all sorts of stories were run in the MSM about who the first responders were – various doctors and police officers being mentioned.

    If you believe that it is coincidence that the Chief Nurse of the British Army was the first person to discover the Skripals ill, you are a credulous fool. And why was it kept quiet?

    4) Remarkable Metabolisms
    This has been noted many times, but no satisfactory answer has ever been given. The official story is that the Skripals were poisoned by their door handle, but then well enough to go out to a pub, feed some ducks, and have a big lunch in Zizzi’s, before being instantly stricken and disabled, both at precisely the same time.

    The Skripals were of very different ages, genders and weights. That an agent which took hours to act but then kicks in with immediate disabling effect, so they could not call for help, would affect two such entirely different metabolisms at precisely the same time, has never been satisfactorily explained. Dosage would have an effect and of course the doorknob method would give an uncontrolled dosage.

    But that the two different random dosages were such that they affected each of these two very different people at just the same moment, so that neither could call for help, is an extreme coincidence. It is almost as unlikely as the person who walks by next being the Chief Nurse of the British Army.

    5) 11 Days
    After the poisoning of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, the Police cordoned off Charlie Rowley’s home and began a search for “Novichok”, in an attitude of extreme urgency because it was believed this poison was out amidst the public. They were specifically searching for a small phial of liquid. Yet it took 11 days of the search before they allegedly discovered the “novichok” in a perfume bottle sitting in plain sight on the kitchen counter – and only after they had discovered the clue of the perfume bottle package in the bin the day before, after ten days of search.

    The bottle was out of its packaging and “novichok”, of which the tiniest amount is deadly, had been squirted out of its nozzle at least twice, by both Rowley and Sturgess, and possibly more often. The exterior of the bottle/nozzle was therefore contaminated. Yet the house, unlike the Skripals’ roof space, has not had to be destroyed.

    I do not believe it took the Police eleven days to find the very thing they were looking for, in plain sight as exactly the small bottle of liquid sought, on a kitchen bench. What else was happening?

    6) Mark Urban/Pablo Miller
    The BBC’s “Diplomatic Editor” is a regular conduit for the security services. He fronted much of the BBC’s original coverage of the Skripal story. Yet he concealed from the viewers the fact that he had been in regular contact with Sergei Skripal for months before the alleged poisoning, and had held several meetings with Skripal.

    This is extraordinary behaviour. It was the biggest news story in the world, and news organisations, including the BBC, were scrambling to fill in the Skripals’ back story. Yet the journalist who had the inside info on the world’s biggest news story, and was actually reporting on it, kept that knowledge to himself. Why? Urban was not only passing up a career defining opportunity, it was unethical of him to continually report on the story without revealing to the viewers his extensive contacts with Skripal.

    The British government had two immediate reactions to the Skripal incident. Within the first 48 hours, it blamed Russia, and it slapped a D(SMA) notice banning all media mention of Skripal’s MI6 handler, Pablo Miller. By yet another one of those extraordinary coincidences, Miller and Urban know each other well, having both been officers together in the Royal Tank Regiment, of the same rank and joining the Regiment the same year.

    I have sent the following questions to Mark Urban, repeatedly. There has been no response:
    To: mark.urban@bbc.co.uk

    Dear Mark,

    As you may know, I am a journalist working in alternative media, a member of the NUJ, as well as a former British Ambassador. I am researching the Skripal case.

    I wish to ask you the following questions.
    1) When the Skripals were first poisoned, it was the largest news story in the entire World and you were uniquely positioned having held several meetings with Sergei Skripal the previous year. Yet faced with what should have been a massive career break, you withheld that unique information on a major story from the public for four months. Why?

    2) You were an officer in the Royal Tank Regiment together with Skripal’s MI6 handler, Pablo Miller, who also lived in Salisbury. Have you maintained friendship with Miller over the years and how often do you communicate?

    3) When you met Skripal in Salisbury, was Miller present all or part of the time, or did you meet Miller separately?

    4) Was the BBC aware of your meetings with Miller and/or Skripal at the time?

    5) When, four months later, you told the world about your meetings with Skripal after the Rowley/Sturgess incident, you said you had met him to research a book. Yet the only forthcoming book by you advertised is on the Skripal attack. What was the subject of your discussions with Skripal?

    6) Pablo Miller worked for Orbis Intelligence. Do you know if Miller contributed to the Christopher Steele dossier on Trump/Russia?

    7) Did you discuss the Trump dossier with Skripal and/or Miller?

    8) Do you know whether Skripal contributed to the Trump dossier?

    9) In your Newsnight piece following the Rowley/Sturgess incident, you stated that security service sources had told you that Yulia Skripal’s telephone may have been bugged. Since January 2017, how many security service briefings or discussions have you had on any of the matter above.
    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Craig Murray
    The lack of openness of Urban in refusing to answer these questions, and the role played by the BBC and the MSM in general in marching in unquestioning lockstep with the British government narrative, plus the “coincidence” of Urban’s relationship with Pablo Miller, give further reason for scepticism of the official narrative.

    7 Four Months
    The official narrative insists that Boshirov and Petrov brought “novichok” into the country; that minute quantities could kill; that they disposed of the novichok that did kill Dawn Sturgess. It must therefore have been of the highest priority to inform the public of the movements of the suspects and the possible locations where deadly traces of “novichok” must be lurking.

    Yet there was at least a four month gap between the police searching the Poplar hotel where Boshirov and Petrov were staying, allegedly discovering traces of novichok in the hotel room, and the police informing the hotel management, let alone the public, of the discovery. That is four months in which a cleaner might have fatally stumbled across more novichok in the hotel. Four months in which another guest in the same hotel might have had something lurking in their bag which they had picked up. Four months in which there might have been a container of novichok sitting in a hedge near the hotel. Yet for four months the police did not think any of this was urgent enough to tell anybody.

    The astonishing thing is that it was a full three months after the death of Dawn Sturgess before the hotel were informed, the public were informed, or the pictures of “Boshirov” and “Petrov” in Salisbury released. There could be no clearer indication that the authorities did not actually believe that any threat from residual novichok was connected to the movements of Boshirov and Petrov.

    Similarly the metadata on the famous CCTV images of Boshirov and Petrov in Salisbury, published in September by the Met Police, showed that all the stills were prepared by the Met on the morning of 9 May – a full four months before they were released to the public. But this makes no sense at all. Why wait a full four months for people’s memories to fade before issuing an appeal to the public for information? This makes no sense at all from an investigation viewpoint. It makes even less sense from a public health viewpoint.

    If the authorities were genuinely worried about the possible presence of deadly novichok, and wished to track it down, why one earth would you wait for four months before you published the images showing the faces and clothing and the whereabouts of the people you believe were distributing it?

    The only possible conclusion from the amazing four month delays both in informing the hotel, and in revealing the Boshirov and Petrov CCTV footage to the public, is that the Metropolitan Police did not actually believe there was a public health danger that the two had left a trail of novichok. Were the official story true, this extraordinary failure to take timely action in a public health emergency may have contributed to the death of Dawn Sturgess.

    The metadat shows Police processed all the Salisbury CCTV images of Boshirov and Petrov a month before Charlie Rowley picked up the perfume. The authorities claim the CCTV images show they could have been to the charity bin to dump the novichok. Which begs the question, if the Police really believed they had CCTV of the movements of the men with the novichok, why did they not subsequently exhaustively search everywhere the CCTV shows they could have been, including that charity bin?

    The far more probable conclusion appears to be that the lack of urgency is explained by the fact that the link between Boshirov and Petrov and “novichok” is a narrative those involved in the investigation do not take seriously.

    8 The Bungling Spies
    There are elements of the accepted narrative of Boshirov and Petrov’s movements that do not make sense. As the excellent local Salisbury blog the Blogmire points out, the CCTV footage shows Boshirov and Petrov, after they had allegedly coated the door handle with novichok, returning towards the railway station but walking straight past it, into the centre of Salisbury (and missing their first getaway train in the process). They then wander around Salisbury apparently aimlessly, famously window shopping which is caught on CCTV, and according to the official narrative disposing of the used but inexplicably still cellophane-sealed perfume/novichok in a charity donation bin, having walked past numerous potential disposal sites en route including the railway embankment and the bins at the Shell garage.

    But the really interesting thing, highlighted by the blogmire, is that the closest CCTV ever caught them to the Skripals’ house is fully 500 metres, at the Shell garage, walking along the opposite side of the road from the turning to the Skripals. There is a second CCTV camera at the garage which would have caught them crossing the road and turning down towards the Skripals’ house, but no such video or still image – potentially the most important of all the CCTV footage – has ever been released.

    However the 500 metres is not the closest the CCTV places the agents to the Skripals. From 13.45 to 13.48, on their saunter into town, Boshirov and Petrov were caught on CCTV at Dawaulders coinshop a maximum of 200 metres away from the Skripals, who at the same time were at Avon Playground. The bin at Avon playground became, over two days in the immediate aftermath of the Skripal “attack”, the scene of extremely intensive investigation. Yet the Boshirov and Petrov excursion – during their getaway from attempted murder – into Salisbury town centre has been treated as entirely pointless and unimportant by the official story.

    Finally, the behaviour of Boshirov and Petrov in the early hours before the attack makes no sense whatsoever. On the one hand we are told these are highly trained, experienced and senior GRU agents; on the other hand, we are told they were partying in their room all night, drawing attention to themselves with loud noise, smoking weed and entertaining a prostitute in the room in which they were storing, and perhaps creating, the “novichok”.

    The idea that, before an extremely delicate murder operation involving handling a poison, a tiny accident with which would kill them, professionals would stay up all night and drink heavily and take drugs is a nonsense. Apart from the obvious effect on their own metabolisms, they were risking authorities being called because of the noise and a search being instituted because of the drugs.

    That they did this while in possession of the novichok and hours before they made the attack, is something I simply do not believe.

    9 The Skripals’ Movements
    Until the narrative changed to Boshirov and Petrov arriving in Salisbury just before lunchtime and painting the doorknob, the official story had been that the Skripals left home around 9am and had not returned. They had both switched off their mobile phones, an interesting and still unexplained point. As you would expect in a city as covered in CCTV as Salisbury, their early morning journey was easily traced and the position of their car at various times was given by the police.

    Yet no evidence of their return journey has ever been offered. There is now a tiny window between Boshirov and Petrov arriving, painting the doorknob apparently with the Skripals now inexplicably back inside their home, and the Skripals leaving again by car, so quickly after the doorknob painting that they catch up with Boshirov and Petrov – or certainly being no more than 200 metres from them in Salisbury City Centre. There is undoubtedly a huge amount of CCTV video of the Skripals’ movements which has never been released. For example, the parents of one of the boys who Sergei was chatting with while feeding the ducks, was shown “clear” footage by the Police of the Skripals at the pond, yet this has never been released. This however is the moment at which the evidence puts Boshirov and Petrov at the closest to them. What does the concealed CCTV of the Skripals with the ducks show?

    Why has so little detail of the Skripals’ movements that day been released? What do all the withheld CCTV images of the Skripals in Salisbury show?

    10 The Sealed Bottle
    Only in the last couple of days have the police finally admitted there is a real problem with the fact that Charlie Rowley insists that the perfume bottle was fully sealed, and the cellophane difficult to remove, when he discovered it. Why the charity collection bin had not been emptied for three months has never been explained either. Rowley’s recollection is supported by the fact that the entire packaging was discovered by the police in his bin – why would Boshirov and Petrov have been carrying the cellophane around with them if they had opened the package? Why – and how – would they reseal it outdoors in Salisbury before dumping it?

    Furthermore, there was a gap of three months between the police finding the perfume bottle, and the police releasing details of the brand and photos of it, despite the fact the police believed there could be more out there. Again the news management agenda totally belies the official narrative of the need to protect the public in a public health emergency.

    This part of the narrative is plainly nonsense.

    Bonus Point – The Integrity Initiative
    The Integrity Initiative specifically paid Dan Kaszeta to publish articles on the Skripal case. In the weekly collections of social media postings the Integrity Initiative sent to the FCO to show its activity, over 80% were about the Skripals.

    Governments do not institute secret campaigns to put out covert propaganda in order to tell the truth. The Integrity Initiative, with secret FCO and MOD sourced subsidies to MSM figures to put out the government narrative, is very plainly a disinformation exercise. More bluntly, if the Integrity Initiative is promoting it, you know it is not true.

    Most sinister of all is the Skripal Group convened by the Integrity Initiative. This group includes Pablo Miller, Skripal’s MI6 handler, and senior representatives of Porton Down, the BBC, the CIA, the FCO and the MOD. Even if all the other ludicrously weak points in the government narrative did not exist, the Integrity Initiative activity in itself would lead me to understand the British government is concealing something important.

    I do not know what happened in Salisbury. Plainly spy games were being played between Russia and the UK, quite likely linked to the Skripals and/or the NATO chemical weapons exercise then taking place on Salisbury Plain yet another one of those astonishing coincidences.

    What I do know is that major planks of the UK government narrative simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

    Plainly the Russian authorities have lied about the identity of Boshirov and Petrov. What is astonishing is the alacrity with which the MSM and the political elite have rallied around the childish logical fallacy that because the Russian Government has lied, therefore the British Government must be telling the truth. It is abundantly plain to me that both governments are lying, and the spy games being played out that day were very much more complicated than a pointless revenge attack on the Skripals.

    I do not believe the British Government. I have given you the key points where the official narrative completely fails to stand up. These are by no means exhaustive, and I much look forward to reading your own views.

    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (8th March 2019), Baby Steps (6th April 2019), Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), greybeard (8th March 2019), Paul (8th March 2019), Tintin (8th March 2019), viking (9th April 2019)

  9. Link to Post #285
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Thanked 16,222 times in 2,341 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    Quote Posted by The Crimson Horse Blanket (here)

    I spotted this on the 29th December, and glad I saved it to my desktop, as it promptly disappeared after some 20 minutes or so. From the Daily Mail (I know, I know), maybe a Freudian slip? The article was a piece on a former GRU officer called Viktor Suvorov.

    The headline read:

    Quote Ex-Soviet spy-hunter who is the only known living defector from the GRU after Sergei Skripal was murdered earlier this year says he is living under TWO death sentences
    It's also here https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...75893609330928 but, yes, shame it was 'pulled' so quickly from the paper that day. Looks like this facebooker had copied and pasted it direct to their page.
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    avid (8th March 2019), Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Hervé (14th March 2019), Paul (8th March 2019)

  11. Link to Post #286
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    North Texas
    Thanked 129,218 times in 20,629 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    The depth and breadth of the deceptions (such as this Skripal case) and mass destruction of peoples, nations and environs (such as Jim Stone reported on the Venezuelan major power outage) ... staggering, unending, world-wide, evil ... boggles my mind.

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    avid (8th March 2019), Baby Steps (7th April 2019), Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Hervé (14th March 2019), Philippe (8th March 2019), Tintin (9th March 2019)

  13. Link to Post #287
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Thanked 7,676 times in 1,433 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    The following article extract seems a bit speculative however it connects many many dots, and plausibly suggests that Skripal had to be silenced as he was involved in money laundering/bribery/paedophile networks that led up to the heart of the British Establishment

    Quote Just as the Russian bribery scandal is exposed, as if by magic, a Russian intelligence officer, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter are alleged to be poisoned by a mysterious substance in their home at Salisbury, England. The substance was allegedly identified as one of the Novichok agents. The lethal dose of a Novichok agent is estimated to be about 1-2 milligrams, or about the mass of two grains of salt. When physicist Andrei Zheleznyakov was exposed to the substance he fell ill and died six years later of complications resultant of the exposure. Reportedly 40+ people were diagnosed with Novichok poisoning in Salisbury and were well enough to be sent home. Not exactly a consistent narrative from the British government. I have sent a FOIA to the Home Office to clarify a few issues.
    It is thought Skripal has Spanish bank accounts and enumerates Russian oligarchs amongst his friends. Could it be he was poisoned to stop him exposing who in Parliament took the bribe to cover up the Russian money laundering scam?
    Gangsters generally have a high disposition for paedophilia – it goes hand-in-hand with sadism and psychopathy. One wonders if the Russian gangsters in and around the West London Synagogue, have been supplying children to child trafficking groups in that area. Perhaps Sir Ian Burnett knows the answers, and perhaps Skripal knew that Burnett had the answers and for that reason Skripal and his daughter were poisoned.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Paul (7th April 2019), Tintin (9th April 2019)

  15. Link to Post #288
    England Avalon Member Did You See Them's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th October 2015
    Thanked 4,832 times in 768 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    UK never asked to interview Salisbury suspects.

    In a wide-ranging interview, Alexander Yakovenko says Russia "simply does not understand the position of the British government".
    Russia's ambassador to the UK claims the British government never asked to interview the Salisbury attack suspects - and that a request would have been considered.

    Alexander Yakovenko, who spoke to Sky News days after meeting novichok victim Charlie Rowley, also revealed he wants his country to do a trade deal with Britain when the UK leaves the EU.

    Asked to respond to the fact two Russian GRU agents were in Salisbury at the exact time of the nerve agent attack, Mr Yakovenko said that it is "the story of the British press and also the government but unfortunately it is not supported by the facts."

    Attempting to support his claims, he cited the interview on Russian television with suspects Anatoliy Chepiga and
    Alexander Mishkin who said "officially" they are not members of the GRU.


  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Did You See Them For This Post:

    Baby Steps (10th April 2019), Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Tintin (9th April 2019)

  17. Link to Post #289
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Thanked 59,141 times in 10,221 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    There are so many holes in the story that have been pointed out.
    The media still keep referring to the nerve agent that poisoned Sergel Skripal and daughter.
    Yet the claim is that this Russian nerve agent is so deadly that it would kill very quickly, no possibility of survival.
    Yet those two survived and where are they now?--Kept safe from what???

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    avid (9th April 2019), Baby Steps (10th April 2019), Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Hervé (9th April 2019), Tintin (9th April 2019)

  19. Link to Post #290
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Thanked 29,259 times in 5,045 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    CIA Director and NYT Accidentally Expose Skripal Poisoning Hoax - DUCKGATE

    The Duran
    Published on 20 Apr 2019

    The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the stunning, inadvertent, admission by the New York Times and CIA Director Gina Haspel that much of what we know from the Salisbury-Skripal poisoning is pure fabrication and manipulation.

    'Duckgate', as it is now being dubbed, was used to trick US President Trump into expelling 60 Russian Diplomats over false photographic evidence presented to him by Haspel, as it was provided to her by UK authorities.

    The manipulation of POTUS Trump, courtesy of CIA Director Haspel, the UK government (and accidentally documented on by the NYT), has now blown open some serious holes into the entire narrative that Sergei and Yulia Skripal were poisoned by Russian agents with the deadly Novichok nerve agent.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Hervé (20th April 2019), HikerChick (16th June 2020), Tintin (18th October 2019)

  21. Link to Post #291
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Thanked 95,327 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    New Developments in the Skripal Case Reveal it for the Sham it Always Was.

    By James ONeill

    “The willing suspension of disbelief or the moment which constitutes poetic faith.” This has been defined as willingness to suspend one’s critical faculties and believe something surreal.

    Samuel Taylor Coleridge Biographic Literaric 1817.
    The above quotation, now more than 200 years old, remains a perfect encapsulation of the ongoing farce (or tragedy) that is the case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

    Mr Skripal was a Russian intelligence agent who betrayed his country. After serving part of his prison term he was released and moved to England where he lived in the small English city of Salisbury. His daughter Yulia, a Russian citizen and resident of Moscow, visited her father in Salisbury in March 2018.

    Whilst she was there, father and daughter became seriously ill while in the centre of town. They were found on a park bench and taken to hospital. They both recovered, and apart from a brief statement by Yulia some weeks later, neither has been heard from since.

    At the time of the incident, the then United Kingdom Prime Minister Therese May, made a series of unequivocal statements about the incident in which she blamed Russia as being the Government responsible for the Skripal’s illness. She further claimed that the agent used to disable the Skripals was a Russian developed agent she labeled “Novichok.”

    The Russian sounding name and its reputed origins were evidence, May claimed, that the Russian government was responsible for what happened to the Skripals. The United Kingdom government imposed sanctions on Russia. In this they were joined by a number of other countries, including Australia.

    As more information became available, the United Kingdom government’s version became less and less plausible. In fact, many of the allegations made by the United Kingdom government were downright absurd. It is sufficient to note here that the alleged agent used to protect the Skripals was a highly toxic substance where only minute quantities are required to cause an almost instant death.

    The Skripals were said to be infected at Sergei’s home. There has never been a satisfactory explanation of how the pair were infected, yet managed to survive several hours, during which time they travelled, fed ducks in the park, ate a meal, and walked through the city centre. The official version was beyond absurd.

    Facts however, did not seem to matter with a gullible media rushing to report the government’s absurdities, and a number of countries expelling Russian diplomats. The ordinary alleged Western principles of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after a proper legal process were simply abandoned in the anti-Russian hysteria that was generated.

    Quite why the Russian government would wish to assassinate a former spy whom they had released and allowed to depart Russia some years previously was never explained. Even less plausible was any motive as to why Russia would seek to kill Yulia while visiting her father. She was, as far as one can tell, a blameless Russian citizen living in Moscow and planning her forthcoming marriage.

    Logic, or the lack thereof, has never been regarded as an essential element in western propaganda.

    That the real reason for the propaganda barrage against Russia may have been to disrupt the then forthcoming World Cup football finals in that country looks increasingly likely. The tournament was in fact a huge success, including for the tens of thousands of British fans who travelled to Russia for the event.

    Shortly after the Skripals fell ill, the story was given extra legs by two British citizens falling ill from allegedly discovering a tainted (but unopened) bottle of perfume. That woman victim, Dawn Sturgess, later died. This gave rise to fresh anti-Russian hysteria in the British media and kept the story alive for a few more weeks.

    Since then, there has been a serious lack of interest by the western media. That two Russians, one a British resident, the other a Russian resident, should disappear off the face of the planet was apparently not of interest.

    The western press were equally silent on what was a blatant breach of international law, of the rights of the Russian government with regard to one of its citizens, or even the whereabouts or fate of two blameless (on the media’s own narrative) human beings.

    It is known that the British government issued at least one “D” Notice, a device to prevent the media from reporting facts relating to a specific incident. No explanation has been given for that D Notice, although it is know that the identity of the named person, which was suppressed, was a friend of Sergei’s and an active British spy.

    This association, and the details of this man’s activities, suggested that there was a broader agenda at play than an attempt to destroy the success of the World Cup finals. Again, the singularly incurious British media seem content to allow this blatant censorship of what is self evidently a material issue itself speaks volumes.

    Under British law, where there is a suspicious death, a Coroner’s Court hearing must be held. The death of Dawn Sturgess clearly fell within that definition. The first such hearing was held on 19 July 2018 and immediately adjourned.

    And the initial adjournment is not uncommon especially when Police inquiries are ongoing, as was the case here.

    Earlier this month (October 2019) however, the Coroners Court issued a public statement in which is announced that the inquest into Dawn Sturgess’ death had been adjourned indefinitely.

    This is an extraordinary development. It means in effect that the whole of the allegations made over the preceding 18 months, about the cause of death, the persons allegedly responsible, and all the political and propaganda barrage that went with it has now effectively being abandoned.

    The Coroner’s Court cannot establish to the requisite standard how Ms Sturgess died, much less the identity of any individual or government that might be responsible.

    As might be expected, the announcement by the British coroner has been met with a studied silence why the western media. The linking of Ms Sturgess’ death to the alleged activities of two Russian citizens seen in Salisbury on the day the Skripal’s became ill, and the lurid allegations about their alleged activities, have similarly collapsed.

    The whole sorry saga has been disclosed as the complete nonsense that critics of the official original British version, and that of their unquestioning allies such as Australia, always said that it would.

    The discovery of the stricken Skripals by the daughter of a woman who just happened to be the highest ranking British military nurse, and who just happened to be nearby, was another feature that singularly failed to interest the incurious media, content as ever to repeat British government propaganda.

    The other feature that has been allowed to disappear down the memory hole is the whereabouts of the Skripals. They have been neither seen nor heard from in more than 15 months. The British media and their equivalents elsewhere remain singularly incurious about this feature.

    It is proof yet again of the timeliness of Coleridge’s axiom about (in this case the media’s) singular lack of curiosity and willingness to suspend disbelief. Protestations about the “rule of law” are revealed yet again for the self-serving words that they are.
    James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Cara (18th October 2019), greybeard (18th October 2019), mountain_jim (20th October 2019), The Moss Trooper (18th October 2019), Tintin (18th October 2019)

  23. Link to Post #292
    Avalon Member The Moss Trooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st May 2017
    Thanked 3,518 times in 502 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    The D-Notice (D for Defence) was issued to protect the identity, which has all but been scrubbed from the internet, of the gentleman who appears in the reflection in the mirror, holding the camera that has just taken the picture of the Skripals in this picture:

    Attachment 41708

    This was the restaurant the Skripals and 'Miller' had eaten in just before the Skripals became incapacitated by 'Novichok'.

    That man is 'Pablo Miller'............ Not his real name of course, not quite. MI6 operative with quite the history, built in a relatively short space of time. One of the Farm's more cut-and-thrust operatives, a shining star of the future if his reputation is to be believed.

    And what of Petrov and Boshirov, the 'patsies', and the missing 42 minutes?

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to The Moss Trooper For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th October 2019), Cara (19th October 2019), Hervé (18th October 2019), Tintin (18th October 2019)

  25. Link to Post #293
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Thanked 16,222 times in 2,341 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    Here's some interesting news from Craig Murray, from his blog entry, October 18th:

    "I am aiming to make a full documentary film on the Salisbury events entitled “Truth and the Skripals”, based around the questions raised on this blog. I shall be looking to launch crowdfunding for the documentary shortly, probably within the week."

    Regular viewers to this thread will have noticed that I too was gripped by the total implausibility of the British Government's narrative around this whole puzzling series of incidents.

    Importantly, here below, is a reminder of the other victim - Dawn Sturgess - who appeared to me at the time as being convenient collateral to support the narrative, and, it's a conclusion that Craig also reaches.

    As far as a planned documentary is concerned, that leaves me pretty excited, as Craig is solid gold: it's certain to be highly informative.

    Here's the article:

    No Inquest for Dawn Sturgess

    The killing of poor Dawn Sturgess was much the most serious of the events in Salisbury and Amesbury that attracted international attention. Yet nobody has been charged, no arrest warrant issued and no inquest held.

    The inquest for Dawn Sturgess has today been yet again postponed, for the fourth time, and for the first time no new prospective date has been given for it to open. Alarmingly, the coroner’s office are referring press enquiries to Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command – which ought to have no role in an inquest process supposed to be independent of the police.

    Congratulations to Rob Slane and to John Helmer for their excellent work in following this.

    It appears very probable that the independent coroner’s inquiry process is going to be cancelled and, as in the case of David Kelly, replaced by a politically controlled “public inquiry” with a trusty or malleable judge in charge, like Lord Hutton of Kincora. This is because the truth of Dawn Sturgess’ death in itself destroys key elements of the government’s narrative on what happened in Salisbury.

    Simply put, the chemical that killed Dawn Sturgess could not have been the same that allegedly poisoned the Skripals. Charlie Rowley is adamant that he found it in a packaged and fully sealed perfume bottle, in a charity bin. Furthermore he states that it was a charity bin he combed through regularly and it had not been there earlier, in the three months between the alleged attack on the Skripals and his taking it from the bin.

    The government narrative that “Boshirov and Petrov” used that perfume bottle to attack the Skripals, then somehow resealed the cellophane, and disposed of it in the bin, depends on the Russians having a tiny plastic resealing technology concealed on them (and why bother?), on their taking a long detour to dispose of the “perfume” in a charity bin – the one method that guaranteed it being found and reused – and the “perfume” then achieving a lengthy period of invisibility in the bin before appearing again three months later.

    Those are only some of a number of inconvenient facts. Perfume does not come as a gel; it cannot both have been applied as a gel to the Skripals’ doorknob and sprayed on to Dawn Sturgess’ wrists. Gels do not spray. Neither Porton Down nor the OPCW was able to state it was from the same batch as the chemical allegedly used on the Skripals’ house.

    Then there is the fascinating fact that it took eleven days of intensive searching for a vial of liquid in a small modern home, for the police to find the perfume bottle sitting on the kitchen counter.

    Nobody has been charged with the manslaughter or murder of Dawn Sturgess. There is still an international arrest warrant out for Boshirov and Petrov for the attack on the Skripals. Very interestingly indeed, this warrant has never been changed into the names of Chepiga and Mishkin.

    From the moment I heard of the attack on Dawn Sturgess I worried that she – a person down on her luck and living in a hostel – was exactly the kind of person the powerful and wealthy would view as a disposable human being if her death fitted their narrative. The denial of an inquest for her, and the complete lack of interest by the mainstream media in the obvious nonsense of the official story that ties her to the Skripal poisoning, tends to confirm these fears. What Dawn Sturgess’ death tells us, beyond doubt, is that the government narrative is fake and the Skripal and Sturgess cases are two separate incidents. Which makes a local origin of the chemical very much more likely. No wonder the government is determined to avoid the inquest.

    I was struck today that the tame neo-con warmongering “Chemical weapons expert” Hamish De Bretton Gordon, former head of the British Army’s chemical weapons unit, appeared on Sky News. He was being interviewed on use of white phosphorous by Turkey in Syria and repeatedly tried to deflect the narrative on to alleged chemical weapons use by Syrian government forces, arguing that the present crisis was the moral responsibility of those who opposed western military action against Assad. But what particularly struck me was that he appeared by Skype – from Salisbury. When you look at the British government’s own chemical weapons expertise, you are continually led back to Salisbury, perhaps not surprisingly given the location of Porton Down.

    I am aiming to make a full documentary film on the Salisbury events entitled “Truth and the Skripals”, based around the questions raised on this blog. I shall be looking to launch crowdfunding for the documentary shortly, probably within the week.
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th October 2019), Cara (20th October 2019), mountain_jim (20th October 2019)

  27. Link to Post #294
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Thanked 4,896 times in 705 posts

    Default Re: Sergei Skripal: who was behind the Salisbury poisoning?

    The Miracle of Salisbury

    by craig

    16 Jun, 2020 in Uncategorized
    View Comments

    It turns out that the BBC really does believe that God is an Englishman. When the simple impossibility of the official story on the Skripals finally overwhelmed the dramatists, they resorted to Divine Intervention for an explanation – as propagandists have done for millennia.

    This particular piece of script from Episode 2 of The Salisbury Poisonings deserves an induction in the Propaganda Hall of Fame:
    Porton Down Man: I’ve got the reports from the Bailey house
    Public Health Woman: Tell me, how many hits?
    Porton Down Man: It was found in almost every room of the house. Kitchen, bathroom, living room, bedrooms. It was even on the light switches. We found it in the family car too. But his wife and children haven’t been affected. I like to think of myself as a man of science, but the only word for that is a miracle.
    Well, it certainly would be a miracle that the family lived for a week in the house without touching a light switch. But miracle is not really the “only word for that”. Nonsense is a good word. Bull**** is a ruder version. Lie is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

    Because that was not the only miracle on display. We were told specifically that the Skripals had trailed novichok all over Zizzis and the Bishops Mill pub, leaving multiple deadly deposits, dozens of them in total, which miraculously nobody had touched. We were told that Detective Bailey was found to have left multiple deadly deposits of novichok on everything he touched in a busy police station, but over several days before it was closed down nobody had touched any of them, which must be an even bigger miracle than the Baileys’ home.

    Perhaps even more amazingly, as the Skripals spread novichok all over the restaurant and the pub, nobody who served them had been harmed, nobody who took their payment. The man who went through Sergei’s wallet to learn his identity from his credit cards was not poisoned. The people giving first aid were not poisoned. The ducks Sergei fed were not poisoned. The little boy he fed the ducks with was not poisoned. So many miracles. If God were not an Englishman, Salisbury would have been in real trouble, evidently.

    The conclusion of episode two showed Charlie Rowley fishing out the perfume bottle from the charity bin at least two months in the timeline before this really happened, thus neatly sidestepping one of the most glaring impossibilities in the entire official story. I think we can forgive the BBC that lie – there are only so many instances of divine intervention in the story the public can be expected to buy in one episode.

    It is fascinating to see that the construction of this edifice of lies was a joint venture between the BBC and the security services’ house journal, the Guardian. Not only is all round pro-war propagandist “Colonel” Hamish De Bretton Gordon credited as Military Advisor, but Guardian journalists Caroline Bannock and Steven Morris are credited as Script Consultants, which I presume means they fed in the raw lies for the scriptwriters to shape into miracles.

    Now here is an interesting ethical point for readers of the Guardian. The Guardian published in the last fortnight two articles by Morris and Bannock that purported to be reporting on the production of the drama and its authenticity, without revealing to the readers that these full time Guardian journalists were in fact a part of the BBC project. That is unethical and unprofessional in a number of quite startling ways. But then it is the Guardian.

    [Full disclosure. I shared a flat with Caroline at university. She was an honest person in those days.]

    Again, rather than pepper this article with links, I urge you to read this comprehensive article, which contains plenty of links and remains entirely unanswered.

  28. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    avid (16th June 2020), Bill Ryan (16th June 2020), mountain_jim (17th June 2020), The Moss Trooper (16th June 2020), Tintin (16th June 2020), viking (16th June 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst 1 5 15

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts