Salisbury, Skripal, Poison and Russia.

[Beechey]

Russia has told Britain a total of more than 50 of its diplomats will have to leave, amid a deepening row over the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in the UK.

 

Moscow initially expelled 23 British diplomats after 23 Russian diplomats were ordered out by London.

But now the Russians are insisting that even more UK diplomats should leave.

It says the UK and Russian diplomatic missions should be the same size in each country.

In practice that would mean at least another 27 UK officials being sent home, the BBC's Paul Adams reports from Moscow.

The British government blames Russia for the nerve agent attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Moscow denies it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43604053

 

You can't deal with a state that's run like some crime syndicate. Expel their ambassador.

[leicsmac]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salisbury-poisoning-russia-novichok-nerve-agent-porton-down-proof-evidence-mod-latest-a8286761.html

 

Sounds like the scientists involved are hedging their bets, which is fair enough.

[Guest]

Who to believe?

Porton Down say they can't locate where the novichok came from

 

Porton Down experts unable to verify precise source of novichok

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/03/porton-down-experts-unable-to-verify-precise-source-of-novichok?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Yet Boris has said this previously

 

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

17 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Who to believe?

Porton Down say they can't locate where the novichok came from

 

Porton Down experts unable to verify precise source of novichok

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/03/porton-down-experts-unable-to-verify-precise-source-of-novichok?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Yet Boris has said this previously

 

 

That man is very very dangerous imo

[Strokes]

Could get nasty if they’ve messed this up.

 

[Webbo]

I don't see how they could prove it 100% scientifically without access to the Russian lab. There's no doubt its Russia.

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't see how they could prove it 100% scientifically without access to the Russian lab. There's no doubt its Russia.

You still have to have evidence to support your claims and have to choose words carefully. If they don’t have enough, they could look more than a little foolish.

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You still have to have evidence to support your claims and have to choose words carefully. If they don’t have enough, they could look more than a little foolish.

 

And they will have. "we have provided the scientific information to the government, who have then used a number of other sources to piece together the conclusions that they have come to”. “a number of different input sources which the government has access to”, adding: “Scientific evidence is only one of those sources.”

Boris may look a bit stupid and his comms team will have known straight away, but Porton Down have only confirmed the government position. 

[Buce]

 

A few weeks ago we were being told it had a 'unique chemical signature' that proved where it was made. Now we are being told that isn't true. But the government 'know' it was Russia, right? I think they had better tell us how they 'know' because this is starting to stink.

[Guest]

Boris vs the experts.

But then, he doesn't much need experts does he?

Absolute joke of a Foreign Secretary.

[Strokes]

56 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

And they will have. "we have provided the scientific information to the government, who have then used a number of other sources to piece together the conclusions that they have come to”. “a number of different input sources which the government has access to”, adding: “Scientific evidence is only one of those sources.”

Boris may look a bit stupid and his comms team will have known straight away, but Porton Down have only confirmed the government position. 

Hopefully they do have the evidence they say. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I don't see how they could prove it 100% scientifically without access to the Russian lab. There's no doubt its Russia.

They can't, which is why Boris/the government saying that this was utterly conclusive rather than "the preponderance of the evidence points that way" was a bit daft in this first place when the governments own scientists couldn't back it up conclusively. As that Tweet said, words matter.

 

58 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

And they will have. "we have provided the scientific information to the government, who have then used a number of other sources to piece together the conclusions that they have come to”. “a number of different input sources which the government has access to”, adding: “Scientific evidence is only one of those sources.”

Boris may look a bit stupid and his comms team will have known straight away, but Porton Down have only confirmed the government position. 

As Strokes said, do they have access to further evidence that allows them to point a conclusive finger here, seeing as the scientific viewpoint isn't conclusive? If they have, then let them show it.

 

Don't get me wrong, the vast balance of probability is that Russia was responsible for this, but formulating policy based on a certainty when the truth is merely very likely is shaky ground IMO.

[Charl91]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

As Strokes said, do they have access to further evidence that allows them to point a conclusive finger here, seeing as the scientific viewpoint isn't conclusive? If they have, then let them show it

 

It is quite likely evidence that they can't put in the public domain. You don't know how they obtained the evidence and who/what that evidence will compromise. It's most likely evidence gained by unconventional methods.

 

As intrigued as I am about what evidence they have, we have to accept that it's unlikely anything we'll find out in the near future. I think the fact that many other nations were almost entirely convinced based on what the UK government showed is enough to sway me though.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Charl91 said:

 

It is quite likely evidence that they can't put in the public domain. You don't know how they obtained the evidence and who/what that evidence will compromise.

 

As intrigued as I am about what evidence they have, we have to accept that it's unlikely anything we'll find out in the near future. I think the fact that many other nations were almost entirely convinced based on what they UK government showed is enough to sway me though.

You could be right, but I've never bought the state secret/national security argument as a reason to make policy without public knowledge. If you have to cover up an action and the reasoning behind it from scrutiny then it was likely a shitty decision that you shouldn't have made in the first place IMO. A government should be as transparent and accountable as possible.

 

However, other nations following the UK's lead does indeed suggest that they were convinced regarding the culpability which is a fair point.

[Guest Kopfkino]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

They can't, which is why Boris/the government saying that this was utterly conclusive rather than "the preponderance of the evidence points that way" was a bit daft in this first place when the governments own scientists couldn't back it up conclusively. As that Tweet said, words matter.

 

As Strokes said, do they have access to further evidence that allows them to point a conclusive finger here, seeing as the scientific viewpoint isn't conclusive? If they have, then let them show it.

 

Don't get me wrong, the vast balance of probability is that Russia was responsible for this, but formulating policy based on a certainty when the truth is merely very likely is shaky ground IMO.

 

I know we have the misfortune of living in a world where we expect information on tap, but I'm really not sure it's necessary or even responsible for a government to lay out all their information and what they know. And wrt any intelligence, it likely can't be 100% proven. Given that this can't just be knocked up by anyone in a hotel room somewhere, given it degrades over time, given diplomatic privilege could explain how it got here, given Israel or Iran or wherever the conspiracists claim also make this stuff have absolutely no motive whatsoever, and given I have full faith there is likely other info then what more can is necessary. A signed confession from someone at the Kremlin (Putin himself might not have ordered it)?

[Charl91]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You could be right, but I've never bought the state secret/national security argument as a reason to make policy without public knowledge. If you have to cover up an action and the reasoning behind it from scrutiny then it was likely a shitty decision that you shouldn't have made in the first place IMO. A government should be as transparent and accountable as possible.

 

However, other nations following the UK's lead does indeed suggest that they were convinced regarding the culpability which is a fair point.

 

When Turing cracked the enigma code, would you have wanted that made public knowledge? Yeah, I admit that's a little bit of an extreme/far-fetched analogy, but the principal's broadly the same. International politics is a shady, poker-like game; revealing your hand gives your opponents an advantage. I imagine our Government has many ethically-dubious sources of information, just like every country. Sadly, I think it's just one of those things that we have to accept, as much as I'd like us to take the moral high ground, it probably isn't feasible in todays society.

 

I understand your concern though, things like Iraq make you want to be sceptical about any Government foreign-policy decisions. Not much else we can do other than hope that we're the good guys in this one.

 

Part of me suspects that they already know who did this (someone with known links to the Kremlin, perhaps?), it's just that they don't want to make that knowledge public. Just speculation on my part, but we have CCTV everywhere nowadays. It may even be that the Government have much greater ways of collecting information than we realise that they don't want to alert the public of (A la Snowden).

[Carl the Llama]

20 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

When Turing cracked the enigma code, would you have wanted that made public knowledge? Yeah, I admit that's a little bit of an extreme/far-fetched analogy, but the principal's broadly the same. International politics is a shady, poker-like game; revealing your hand gives your opponents an advantage. I imagine our Government has many ethically-dubious sources of information, just like every country. Sadly, I think it's just one of those things that we have to accept, as much as I'd like us to take the moral high ground, it probably isn't feasible in todays society.

 

I understand your concern though, things like Iraq make you want to be sceptical about any Government foreign-policy decisions. Not much else we can do other than hope that we're the good guys in this one.

 

Part of me suspects that they already know who did this (someone with known links to the Kremlin, perhaps?), it's just that they don't want to make that knowledge public. Just speculation on my part, but we have CCTV everywhere nowadays.

Careful you're beginning to sound like Jezza.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I know we have the misfortune of living in a world where we expect information on tap, but I'm really not sure it's necessary or even responsible for a government to lay out all their information and what they know. And wrt any intelligence, it likely can't be 100% proven. Given that this can't just be knocked up by anyone in a hotel room somewhere, given it degrades over time, given diplomatic privilege could explain how it got here, given Israel or Iran or wherever the conspiracists claim also make this stuff have absolutely no motive whatsoever, and given I have full faith there is likely other info then what more can is necessary. A signed confession from someone at the Kremlin (Putin himself might not have ordered it)?

I agree that such intel can't be 100% proven, and (this is the important part for me) the government should have said this was the case. I know people like the comfort of certainties in their life, but stating it was a certainty and basing policy upon information that by its very nature has uncertainty and through sources that cannot be revealed just seems extremely dishonest - like they're asking the populace to trust them absolutely on faith, when that road hasn't ended well in history. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Charl91 said:

 

When Turing cracked the enigma code, would you have wanted that made public knowledge? Yeah, I admit that's a little bit of an extreme/far-fetched analogy, but the principal's broadly the same. International politics is a shady, poker-like game; revealing your hand gives your opponents an advantage. I imagine our Government has many ethically-dubious sources of information, just like every country. Sadly, I think it's just one of those things that we have to accept, as much as I'd like us to take the moral high ground, it probably isn't feasible in todays society.

 

I understand your concern though, things like Iraq make you want to be sceptical about any Government foreign-policy decisions. Not much else we can do other than hope that we're the good guys in this one.

 

Part of me suspects that they already know who did this (someone with known links to the Kremlin, perhaps?), it's just that they don't want to make that knowledge public. Just speculation on my part, but we have CCTV everywhere nowadays. It may even be that the Government have much greater ways of collecting information than we realise that they don't want to alert the public of (A la Snowden).

Ultra intelligence (along with a lot of operations during WWII) was an example of a nation very much having to take the actions of a government on faith and trusting them to do the right thing. In that case their faith was rewarded, which is good - but history is full of times when the opposite was true. Unaccountable power can do pretty nasty things to people.

 

Realpolitik is the way the world works right now, I agree - and actions that can never be made public are indeed a key part of that, and they have been throughout history. Just don't expect me to like it or think that it is in any way necessary to safeguard human future as a whole, and as such maintain the scepticism you talk about.

[Wymsey]

In two minds as to whether the Russians have made this up or not, and wouldn't be surprised if they did to gain support on this matter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43652574

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Wymeswold fox said:

In two minds as to whether the Russians have made this up or not, and wouldn't be surprised if they did to gain support on this matter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43652574

It's perfectly plausible that they did fabricate it, wouldn't surprise me.

 

Also...purely by the by, how many times does Boris have to put his foot in it on the diplomatic front before someone has a word?

[Trav Le Bleu]

If Russia is so adamant that they didn't do it, perhaps they'd like to suggest who else might want to kill the Skripals?

[Wymsey]

Things are heating up further.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43662421

 

There's no point in communicating with a country that doesn't accept any blame over evidence of certain events in years gone by and taking things the wrong way imo.

 

Would rather give Russia the 'silent treatment' and ignore them whilst the victims recover and the government carry on with their own infestation/analysis.

 

Would be great if England somehow managed to win the World Cup over there, it really would be, but of course Russia will throw the conspiracy theory book stating they they've cheated etc.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Things are heating up further.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43662421

 

There's no point in communicating with a country that doesn't accept any blame over evidence of certain events in years gone by and taking things the wrong way imo.

 

Would rather give Russia the 'silent treatment' and ignore them whilst the victims recover and the government carry on with their own infestation/analysis.

 

Would be great if England somehow managed to win the World Cup over there, it really would be, but of course Russia will throw the conspiracy theory book stating they they've cheated etc.

Yeah, digging their heels isn't going to do much good tbh.

 

Russia saying that they could have offed their target in Midsomer Murders-fashion rather than out in the public was funny though.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

I still cant see what Russia's motives would be to commit this attack.  It doesnt add up

 

Seems to have effectively ramped up a pre-existing anti-Russian sentiment though....just sayin'....

[Strokes]

27 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I still cant see what Russia's motives would be to commit this attack.  It doesnt add up

 

Seems to have effectively ramped up a pre-existing anti-Russian sentiment though....just sayin'....

They have the strongest motives to carry out this.....