Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.

[Danny75]

Why refer to her cousin (Victoria) as murderous, what has Victoria done

Nothing, as far as I know. Just displeased the handlers of this case in the UK. It was sarcasm.

Perhaps the medical staff hadn't told the bbc and other media the change in circumstances, if the bbc new they would have reported it.

I don't doubt they failed to inform, and also that the BBC and others are failing to ask daily for updates, and very submissively going along with whatever the authorities feed them, as and when they choose to feed them. Which ended up looking embarrassing when it was Yulia, through the phone call, who broke news that the authorities hadn't yet broken.

Perhaps she just isn't ready to appear in front of the media. It is certainly not proof of anything what so ever

There's not even a need for her to make a media appearance, just a pressing need, whether it's legal or not, for her to take two minutes to speak to a representative of the Russian embassy.

 

[Freakbro]

There's not even a need for her to make a media appearance, just a pressing need, whether it's legal or not, for her to take two minutes to speak to a representative of the Russian embassy.

Why? If she doesn't want to see anyone from the Russian Embassy she doesn't need or have to.

And no, the Russian Embassy has no 'right' to see her against her wishes

 

[Freakbro]

I would certainly not entertain the notion that it was denied due to lack of funds, for a second, though. It is far more likely they have something to hide.

And this gets to the heart of why debating these things with the typical CT nut is just an exercise in frustration.

So you won't entertain the notion, for a second, that a completely normal function of the visa application process, that occurs daily, happened here. But instead believe in some other, completely unknown, but nebulous shadowy theory of subterfuge, with no evidence whatsoever, just your 'gut feeling'

Hmmm

Not everything is a false flag conspiracy propagandised NLP reprogramming of the sheeple population by the evil western incorporated governments...The vast majority of the time the world is just boringly mundane....and incompetent

 

[Angilion]

Why? If she doesn't want to see anyone from the Russian Embassy she doesn't need or have to.

And no, the Russian Embassy has no 'right' to see her against her wishes

It would, however, be useful in terms of international politics. Although in her shoes I'd probably refuse all contact with people who might plausibly be intending to kill me and possibly even the person who tried to kill me. Some of the people at the Russian embassy in the UK will be intelligence agents, that's par for the course for embassies.

When a citizen of one country is the victim of attempted murder in another country and is then secreted away by that country's security services without any contact with their own country's embassy staff and without even a statement from the person themself, it looks bad. Even a video from an anonymous room would be better than that. Carefully anonymise the room, record video to a memory stick, pass memory stick to agent, agent goes somewhere else to upload the video. That should be enough to continue to hide her location, especially if the anonymous room was somewhere other than the safe house she's in. Or maybe "meet" Russian embassy staff either side of a transparent section of a secure quarantine facility somewhere, just in case. There doesn't need to be any contact, just direct speech. Or maybe just meet a representative from the UN and tell them she doesn't want any contact with the Russian Embassy for the time being. Anything other than a statement that's not even from her but is instead from the UK authorities.

 

[Danny75]

Or maybe "meet" Russian embassy staff either side of a transparent section of a secure quarantine facility somewhere, just in case. There doesn't need to be any contact, just direct speech. Or maybe just meet a representative from the UN and tell them she doesn't want any contact with the Russian Embassy for the time being. Anything other than a statement that's not even from her but is instead from the UK authorities.

They could even record video or audio of the meeting if they had concerns about a Russian representative lying about it later. To show them up, in case this happened. It's so easy to arrange and set it up to safeguard any legitimate concerns.

I don't think some people realize the impression that going about things this way is making elsewhere around the world. If there is plenty of scepticism within Britain itself, multiply that exponentially as it spreads out from Britain thanks to the Iraq WMD lies. It's a preaching to the choir tactic ("take our word for it, and Yulia's in an obviously heavily edited statement that is not her own words"*), instead of a winning over the sceptics approach. It is also highly provocative to Russia that this simple courtesy, after waiting patiently for Yulia to recover enough to talk etc, is being withheld from them.

* “At the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services” – wrote no native Russian speaker, ever.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/yulia-skripal-is-plainly-under-duress/

 

[Angilion]

I'm not convinced that the style of language proves that she didn't write it. It's possible, even quite likely, for a person to learn a foreign language in a rather formal way. It's often said that many people from other countries who can speak English do so better than native English speakers, i.e. that their use of English is more formally correct than that of most native English speakers.

But I'm also not convinced that there are her own words. If it was a statement written by the UK authorities, written by a civil servant or some other official, that's exactly how it would be.

It might have been written by her. It might have been what she said but rewritten by UK authorities. It might have been written entirely by UK authorities with no input from her at all.

At best, it's being badly handled. It looks wrong. It creates a bad impression. It's not necessary, not at any time since video and audio recording became available. If I can (and did) come up with several better ways to handle it, the UK authorities certainly should be able to do so.

 

[naefeart]

It might have been written by her. It might have been what she said but rewritten by UK authorities. It might have been written entirely by UK authorities with no input from her at all.

At best, it's being badly handled. It looks wrong. It creates a bad impression. It's not necessary, not at any time since video and audio recording became available. If I can (and did) come up with several better ways to handle it, the UK authorities certainly should be able to do so.

This is my take and why the matter doesn't quite sit well with me. If the situation was reversed and happened in Russia, to an ex-Brit spy and this was the type of response that came out, we'd all be thinking 'Yeah right, this has the Russian Gov written all over it'.

Either way I hope Yulia feels a bit safer now. Must be a very confusing time re who to trust.

 

[Sankari]

Eh? Yes that is what they claimed and what I believe the other poster was referring to @Evangelion - you were referring to Russia claiming they'd been denied consular access right?

Correct. Russia claimed consular access had been denied. This was not true. Russia's offer of consular support was passed on to Yulia, and she turned it down. The UK never denied consular access to Yulia.

Reading between the lines of the daughters statement she slates her cousin and Russia. Russia’s response sounds desperate as well.

Could be an explosive interview once she goes on camera.

Russia is frantically spreading lies and disinformation, spinning as hard as possible to make this whole situation go away. It hasn't worked.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Correct. Russia claimed consular access had been denied. This was not true. Russia's offer of consular support was passed on to Yulia, and she turned it down. The UK never denied consular access to Yulia.

You cannot say "this was not true". You can only say that the UK governments claims that the offer of consular support was passed on and claims that she turned it down.

Well, to be precise you can say it's true but you have no evidence for it. You're simply choosing to believe because you wish to.

 

[dowie]

You cannot say "this was not true". You can only say that the UK governments claims that the offer of consular support was passed on and claims that she turned it down.

Well, to be precise you can say it but you have no evidence for it.

yeah because of course they *might* have secretly kidnapped her right?

 

[Freakbro]

yeah because of course they *might* have secretly kidnapped her right?

Hey, they lied before 15 years ago dontcha know, that means we can never believe anything they say ever again....ever

 

[gettothechopper]

This thread now at the level of peoples points only being provable if they are stood in front of Yulia and ask her themselves?

"BUT WAIT, WHAT IF SHE IS BEING FORCED TO LIE TO ME AGAINST HER WILL?"

 

[h4rm0ny]

yeah because of course they *might* have secretly kidnapped her right?

If she were going to say something that would contradict the preferred narrative then yes, our country is capable of detaining someone against their will and keeping them incommunicado. It's bizarre to me that people think our country is willing to kill people but that keeping someone isolated is some unthinkable rubicon.

 

[Sankari]

You cannot say "this was not true". You can only say that the UK governments claims that the offer of consular support was passed on and claims that she turned it down.

I can say this was not true, because (a) the Russian government has never provided any evidence to prove otherwise, and (b) Yulia Skripal's statement proves the Russians were lying.

 

[Sankari]

This thread now at the level of peoples points only being provable if they are stood in front of Yulia and ask her themselves?

"BUT WAIT, WHAT IF SHE IS BEING FORCED TO LIE TO ME AGAINST HER WILL?"

Conspiracy theorists are notorious for moving the goalposts, requesting impossible standards of evidence, and arbitrarily rejecting evidence whenever it's presented.

Nothing can be allowed to puncture their bubble of delusions. For them, it's never about finding the truth: it's always about defending whatever irrational nonsense they've chosen to believe.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I can say this was not true, because (a) the Russian government has never provided any evidence to prove otherwise, and (b) Yulia Skripal's statement proves the Russians were lying.

You are terrible, utterly terrible at logic. For (a) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A well known principle. For (b) Yulia's statement cannot prove the veracity of Yulia's statement.

Frankly, with that level of argument you're not intelligent enough to participate in this debate. Leave it to people like Rroff and Angillion and just quote them followed by thumbs up emojiis from time to time. 90% of everything you've said here has just been name calling people "conspiracy theorists" and mocking people.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

This thread now at the level of peoples points only being provable if they are stood in front of Yulia and ask her themselves?

"BUT WAIT, WHAT IF SHE IS BEING FORCED TO LIE TO ME AGAINST HER WILL?"

Happens more than you think, my wife told me that I'm crap in bed the other day, I'm sick and tired of the government forcing her to lie to me. This is exactly the same as when my secondary school football coach told me that being a chunky kid who can't run is a negative in terms of being picked for the school team, GOVERNMENT LIES AND FAKE NEWS!

 

[Sankari]

You are terrible, utterly terrible at logic. For (a) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A well known principle. For (b) Yulia's statement cannot prove the veracity of Yulia's statement.

Frankly, with that level of argument you're not intelligent enough to participate in this debate. Leave it to people like Rroff and Angillion and just quote them followed by thumbs up emojiis from time to time.

It's clear that you don't understand how logic actually works. The burden of evidence lies with the claimant. This means the onus is on Russia to prove her claim, and nobody is under any obligation top accept it until it's substantiated.

This is completely different to 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', which refers to something else entirely. Please, don't use technical terms unless you understand them.

 

[gettothechopper]

OPCW agrees with our findings

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43741140

 

[HazardO]

OPCW agrees with our findings

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43741140

They have agreed that they were poisoned by a nerve agent and on the specific chemistry of the nerve agent used. This however does not prove it was Russia, it's still circumstantial evidence based on form, motive and history, however compelling the narrative is. I think it is highly likely it was Russia, but we still have an absence of absoloute proof.