BS: If Russia didn't do it..?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 09:07 PM

Lads... good natured banter or not, a mod with an itchy thread close trigger finger might not be too lenient...

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 07:29 PM

Yes, you are...

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 07:18 PM

Blimey, what an eejit...

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 07:12 PM

Steve, Mr Shaw, Sir Etc, I've canned more than one reply. It isn't worth it, it won't achieve anything, you won't hear. But my fingers keep typing 'patronising cunt'. I hope that, at least, might make you stop & think. On the whole, knowing you only here on Mudcat, I like you & mostly agree with you. If I ever wind up in Bude (nude or not), I'll happily buy you a pint. But spare me the "calm down, dear". You twat. If I could be bothered to react to the random bunch of internet pixels that you are, I'd be laughing at you. Need I say more?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 06:38 PM

You can call me dear but don't call me Shirley.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 06:21 PM

Well stuff Shostakovich, but apart from that I am also an aficionado of Russian culture. However, I'd say that we are all victims of our governments. Currently, all US citizens, for example, are victims of the Trump government. In this country we are victims of the feckless May government, and we're previous victims of the imbecilic Cameron. The great thing for many people about being victims is that they are blissfully unaware of their victimhood. It's not fair.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 06:09 PM

I am a Russian culture admirer of longstanding, despite all the German names in my family tree. I regard the Russians as a people of being more victims of their government than not. But they don't always see it that way. Russian history has been both a cause of and a result of a lot of brutal violence on a tribal level.

Not for nothing, but I heard on the radio once that Hollywood movies that were exported to Russia changed the final reel to make sure the hero died. It was called "putting a Russian ending on the movie."

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:44 PM

Nice to see the ladies in such fine fettle this evening.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:18 PM

I know you love it when I call you dear, Dave, but that was to Raedwulf. Hope you aren't too disappointed! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:18 PM

P.S. I'd apologise for derailing the thread, but Dave started it, the pervert! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:15 PM

My only response to that, this fine Friday evening, is to suggest that you have another vat of wine. And, if you don't drink, my alternative response is calm down, dear.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:11 PM

BTW. As I am sure many are aware I am of Russian ancestry. My dad was Polish, born in Byelystok, but his dad was born in what is now Krupotkin on the Kuban river, which makes him (and me because it is passed on the male line) a Kuban Cossack. My dad told me he learned never to trust a Russian, by which he really meant anyone from around Moscow, from his dad. Funny old world init?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:09 PM

I know what your name is. I call you Steve or Mr Shaw, both of which are your names, as I see fit, according to my humour, Which usually means how in / formal it seems to me is appropriate at the time, and in context with whatever. If you want to get the arsehole about that, more fool you.

I don't have to do better, Steve, Mr Shaw. You do. Well done for bolding 'suggests'. You are way more insistent than I am on this matter. I don't know who is responsible for this mess, and I really don't give a fuck who is. Innocents have been hurt because someone, somewhere, decided Sergei Skripal needed to be murdered. It's you that wants to quibble, far more than I. I could go on at length, but what's the point? I can affect things no more than you.

Scalextric, remember? But you really are an irritating bastard sometimes, Steve. The way you express yourself is just sandpaper sometimes. It's just easier to shoot the messenger. I've learnt to tone down my banter-but-others-see-abrasiveness; Mudcat taught me quite a bit about that. You? First post 13/5/07, 19,200+ posts & counting. Me? Less than 1150, first post 22/8/02. Lies, damned lies, statistics, eh? Mouthy much, Steve? Quantity over quality? If I call your opinions crap, I'm merely being blunt, as you often are. Don't like it, don't do it; don't recognise yourself, find a better mirror. The way one expresses oneself, eh? I know I do it; you seem to think you don't. It cuts all ways. If you ain't learnt that, then good luck with the etcetera! ;-)

I agree with you more often than not, where I've seen your remarks. I rarely comment, hence (perhaps) the difference in our stats. But don't try bullshitting me, sir. I don't ascribe words to you, but your words make you seem blind to the realities. It's all very well questioning, but if it wasn't Russia, who the fuck was it? Logical analysis only points one way & I've already told you what I consider to be 'circumstantial'.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 04:40 PM

My wife [she's got an MA btw..] just said...

"All this is very confusing isn't it.. I don't understand what's going on....?????"

Then she switched over from BBC News to some bright and noisy ITV light entertainment show....


That's what we are all supposed to do innit, if our tory govt had it's way...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 04:25 PM

Too bloody right. Just think before ye post.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 03:30 PM

We all gotta get a slap in at the usual suspects, don't we, mr subtle?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 03:09 PM

There's a tradition in a awful lot of countries of cruelty to civilians. It's all bad, always. I don't want to do whataboutery but I don't care much for blinkered hypocrisy either.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 02:51 PM

FWIW:

There is a long tradition of Russian cruelty to civilians, both foreign and domestic, usually en masse but I have no trouble believing that key Russians in high places have selected individuals for special handling or revenge in particularly noxious manners.

Maybe they are admirers of Livia in "I Claudius". Maybe Lucretia Borgia struck a sympathetic cord with someone in power. Maybe it's a 'thing'.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 02:50 PM

Odd in a way that the Salisbury Two didn't actually undergo "untimely deaths." Who'd have thought that the Russians could be so incompetent! Still. Now what was that about that decent liberal democracy in the Middle East faking UK passports for their Mossad chappies in order to kill a guy they didn't like in Dubai... Gosh, it's a murky old world innit!

Dark talk there, Donuel. You yank guys are still living the Cold War, aren't you? Ronnie Raygun's dead, chaps! You'll be fine!

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 02:46 PM

Ancient astronaut archeologist orhodontic theorists agree
Putin did it

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 02:42 PM

My close relative actually got remunerable employment because he knew a long gone DataBase but someone on the West Coast needed their data re-worked. You never know what you know that someone will want.

I'm waiting for the Pascal renaissance.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 02:40 PM

HPUX and, more recently, RHEL. I am retiring soon though and decided about 2 years ago that I was not going to develop any more skills in that area. With the upsurge of AWS and Docker containers I think I made a wide choice. I do worry what will happen when everything is in the cloud but I guess that as usual it will all work out fine.

Unless the Russians get to it...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 02:24 PM

Dave the Gnome

As a Linux acolyte, thou art damned close to being a god. And I used to really really really hate SAP. And then I met Oracle.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 12:19 PM

I have never been a DBA, a network analyst or a storage specialist but as a UNIX sysadmin I love all three, Raedwulf. If anything is going wrong there are three hurdles people have to get over before they hit me. LAN, SAN and Oracle. 99% of the time it is the latter. The other 1% it is the Russians...

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 12:06 PM

"However, the evidence available currently suggests no other actor than... No other possible actor than..."
You really have got to do better than that

None of us have seen all the evidence.
Those that have are convinced by it.

Australia, Canada, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, .......

All the countries where you would have no worries if your kids went to live and work.
Countries that really believe in justice and freedom, unlike the current regime in Russia where critics of the government meet untimely deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 11:57 AM

Apologies Max, The NSA automatically scans and stores all text that has the phrase building a bomb, among thousands of other key words.

What I am on about is both delicious and sad but it doesn't matter and you need not know.

Today just knowing the obvious is dangerous as it was in the Rosenberg days.

Suffice it to say if any of the posters here had actual hard evidence they would disappear. Since you are all here, enjoy the sandbox.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 11:31 AM

"However, the evidence available currently suggests no other actor than... No other possible actor than..."

You really have got to do better than that. And not once have I ever said "it could have been anyone." In fact, I think I've said several times that it is more likely than not to have been Russia. Words to that effect. And what I said about circumstantial evidence doesn't clash with what you said at all. But coming to your logical conclusions needs a more solid set of premises than you currently have to hand, unfortunately. I'm still waiting for your "more than circumstantial " evidence, by the way. Finally, do keep it civil between us. You're getting a bit too sarky-out-loud. Calling my opinions crap or rubbish doesn't make them any more so than they may already be, and my name is Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 11:05 AM

Dave - Alright, I'm guilty! I was never a dba (database administrator, for those not in the know), but I was an analyst/programmer for a FTSE 100's company's Order To Cash system, which is practically the same thing ("what's going on in there; can you make it tell us this..."). I'll come quietly... ;-)

Don - I have no bloody idea what you're on about...

Steve - crap. Again. You say that circumstantial evidence can add to a case. Of course, but it can't stand alone. Yes, Steve, that's EXACTLY what I said - Circumstantial evidence doesn't make a case; it can only add to it. And you the occasional rabid grammar & speeling (sic!) hornet that thou art. ;-) C'mon, mate. I said that. Are you being guilty of reading of what you want to read, instead of what was written?

2/4d yerself. As you said, you're not arguing with me. Not precisely, but... Did you ever have a Scalextric track? Remember the crossover chicane? We're both headed in the same direction, but we never seem to be on the same track. Everything you just said can be thrown back in your face, which is my basic point. I don't know; happily, I'm not in a position where I have to judge.

However, the evidence available currently suggests no other actor than... No other possible actor than... Your own "Iran" proves my point more than yourn, because my point is not that state singular can keep its secret. It can't; it doesn't. But it takes the concerted effort of A.N.Other state to... And A.N.Other state hangs on to it like grim death too.

Ultimately, I make no more assumptions than you, Mr Shaw. But your assumptions do appear to be "There's no evidence so it could have been anyone". My assumptions are "The evidence available suggests..." I ain't making any judgements beyond "Rubbish arguments, Shaw. Must do better. D-" ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 08:49 AM

You know, you can make 'boiling a bum' out of 'building a bomb'. There is only 'db' left over. Sounds very suspicious to me.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 08:44 AM

Raedwulf (sounds like a fascist Bannon gaming avatar)
may be building a nuclear device. Surveillance should focus on his easiest targets for stealing fissionable or poisonous components in his area which are Hospitals, Construction sites, older glass enclosed containment vessels (can be found almost anywhere) and older military contractor facilities like Grumman, General Dynamics, UTC and Lockheed Martin. Zor Valley NYS or Rocky Flats CO is by far easier to gain access than Hanford or Oak Ridge.

Nuclear reactor grounds have enormous quantities but security is somewhat tighter.

Please, no one should encourage this guy.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 08:43 AM

All you're actually doing is padding around the same old two-and-fourpence arguments. You assert that some evidence is "more than circumstantial." Well that's news to me. Which bits then? So states guard their secrets very very carefully, do they? So what's the point of all those spies then, and how come it's known that Novichok has been manufactured in Iran? That latter fact alone means that the cat's well and truly out of the bag. You say that circumstantial evidence can add to a case. Of course, but it can't stand alone. There has to be a case to begin with that's based on something a bit more solid than mere suspicion of a state that you hate already. Your logical analysis may follow the rules of logic on the face of it but if the premises on which your analysis is predicated are assumptions that you can't confirm then the whole edifice collapses. In other words, you've contrived an involved and intricate argument that has added precisely nothing new.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 08:15 AM

Steve, 6:32 & 6:45 - cross-posting, as I'm sure you realise... Argh. I'm wanting to get out into the garden & plant things but... Oh alright...

A nuclear device is pretty simple to build, depending on what you want. An explosion? Little Boy was a simple gun. Modern nukes are far more complex & much, much harder to create, even though that tech is also relatively old. Plus, of course, you have to be able to acquire the necessary fissile materials. Dirty bomb? Just get a load of radioactive leftovers & pack them round a suitable amount of explosives. It's all very simple, tech-wise.

It's not ridiculous to suggest that Novichok is an exception. The tech, or rather chemistry, to produce poison gas is very much old hat. Nerve agents are only an extension of that. Again much of it, yes, is old hat. A competent chemist with a decently equipped lab could, I presume, produce them. Google Sarin & wiki will give you the chemical formula for it. After that, it's only a matter of working out what primary ingredients you need & how to construct the reaction chain...

Novichok is another matter; from wiki: "Russian scientists who developed the agents claim they are the deadliest nerve agents ever made, with some variants possibly five to eight times more potent than VX, and others up to ten times more potent than soman. They were designed as part of a Soviet program codenamed "FOLIANT". Five Novichok variants are believed to have been weaponised for military use. The most versatile was A-232 (Novichok-5)."

Note the "weaponised" - it's all very well to produce a doomsday weapon, but you don't want it going off in your own back yard, right? The first gas attacks were delivered from cylinders & were prone to being blown the wrong way by the wind. The first man-made nuclear explosion was a tower-mounted test device that couldn't have been deployed against an enemy.

Novichok agents may have been around for a long time. However, as above, they are claimed to the most poisonous agents known. What was used must have been "weaponised". Otherwise there would have been another twitching body beside the Skripals. So it's a subset of a military-level secret. Governments may indulge in skulduggery, but they don't release the information they gain. The West must know various chemical formulas that fall under the Novichok label, otherwise they would neither know what it was, nor be able to produce counter-measures (Porton Down has more or less admitted that it has).

It is neither reasoned nor reasonable to claim that because Novichok agents were originally created some 40+ years ago the process to manufacture them must therefore be available to non-state bodies or to individuals. You will happily resort to extreme pedantry in debate, Steve, so I have no hesitation in pulling you up on this. This is a shit argument, sir! States guard their secrets very, very carefully. Although the knowledge of Novichok chemistry is obviously not solely in the hands of the Russian govt, it is stupendously unlikely that it has escaped from the control of the states that have it. If it had, it would surely have been used ere now.

Someone attempted to murder Sergei Skripal. Whoever it was had to have a motive & the means to do it. Who knows who might have had a motive? But the only credible aggressor that had the means used & the will to apply the means in the careless & indiscriminate fashion that happened would appear to be Russia. That's logical analysis, not circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence doesn't make a case; it can only add to it. The CE here is "We think Russia has done this sort of thing before". Without e.g. Litvinenko, we would still be pointing the finger at Russia, because Russia is the only credible would-be murderer.

And if it were me in the dock, no I wouldn't be stood there going "Of course it wasn't me, maybe it was you.." as Russia has done. I think I'd be going "Wow! Someone really wants to frame me for this... But sorry, Yer Honour, the evidence looks bad but it weren't me!"

And, for what it is worth, I have no feelings about Russia one way or t'other. Except that I think that Russia suffers under a fascist government not very different from Stalin's fascism*!

*Fascism is not a right wing thing; it's extreme authoritarianism. Consider that there is a N / S y axis to the commonly understood W / E x axis of left & right, when it comes to political ideology. The Nazis were fascists because they were authoritarian, not because they were extreme right wing (they weren't; they were more or less central overall). Marxism is not, doctrinally, authoritarian. But every real world occurrence (coz uz 'oomans iz stoopid) has been fascist. Fascism is about control; it's authoritarian. Stalin was a fascist, Hitler was a fascist, Putin is a fascist. Blessedly, it seems to be an idiosyncracy the UK is free of (however much anyone may loathe the Tories or Nigel Farceage!)

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 07:53 AM

Steve,
Nearly all the evidence I've seen so far comes into the category of "typical Russian behaviour so it was definitely Russia."

No evidence has been released except the type of agent.
All those who have seen the evidence are convinced it was Russia.

You made the analagy of someone in a criminal dock.
You could regard those 28 countries as the jurors.
Their verdict is "Guilty."

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 06:52 AM

Russian ambassador Vasily Numnutz warns Britain "YOU WILL BE SORRY"

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 06:45 AM

Steve - deflectionary, diversionary. I'm not entirely sure what post Don is responding to, but I otherwise have to side with him. Your attempt at a parallel is entirely false. There is neither court nor judge in this case (and I would argue that the evidence is rather more than circumstantial, but that's another matter). You are being a perfect Boris in casting aspersions & evading the actual question.

If Russia is not the actor in this, who might plausibly be the guilty party? Genuinely, I cannot think of any other candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 06:32 AM

As for suggesting a credible alternative, how can I? I haven't got enough evidence to conclude one way or the other whodunnit. It isn't being devil's advocate to say, give me more evidence before I can fairly make up my mind. Note "fairly." Nearly all the evidence I've seen so far comes into the category of "typical Russian behaviour so it was definitely Russia."

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 06:31 AM

Up to a point, Dave, I agree with you. My personal beef about Johnson is the 'bumbling buffoon' image that he projects. Either it's A) real, or B) fake. Both are dangerous. If it's real he is, genuinely, a loose cannon & who knows where he'll end up. If it's fake, he's not loose at all, but he is every bit as dangerous. For reasons which are too obvious to need explanation!

I wouldn't put him in the same box as Farceage or Trumpetty. Whatever he may be after, he is not the self-absorbed one-trick pony that they are. Boris believes in... something (no, I don't think it's just 'himself', though I would agree he has an ego!). One thing that I always find repellent in the left, when expressed (as it all too often is), is the notion that only the left have morals, ethics, principles. The Tories are all just selfish greedy bast... No they're not! They believe in what they believe in just as much as der lef' duz! I think 'trickle-down economics' is complete bullshit (primarily because it doesn't recognise a difference between 'value / wealth' and 'money'), but that doesn't entitle me to label someone who does believe in it, does it? It just means we differ.

The fact remains that if BJ is replaced, he is only replaced with A.N.Other. Other will be attacked regardless. If Other doesn't have the baggage that is attached to BJ, the attacks will be that they are just a party mouthpiece, doesn't have experience, something based upon their past utterances, etc. Other is no more likely to be upstanding & honest; it will only be that they are less known. I stand by my point - it makes fuck all difference who is FS, because it will still be a politician. And there is, still, no proof that Boris deliberately lied - he is, quite possibly, stupid & bumbling enough to have thought that he was told...

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 06:27 AM

Steve there are times when your post is a 100% reversal of the truth.
I have concluded you are not being sarcastic, making a parody or posing satire.
Even if you mean it you don't see it. For now I'll crack it up as a lazy quip not thought through. Are you OK? It's not Mad Cow is it?
If you are posting satire make it more obvious like;

Don Times reports;
Facebook to ACQUIRE Catholic Church
All private Data will be shared and viewed as a valid Confession.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 06:02 AM

I advocated that Russia should get involved with the investigation at the outset. I am puzzled over why, now that they have suggested that very thing, it is being dismissed out of hand.

Russia offers help to UK to probe poisoning

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:56 AM

So, Raedwulf, if I'm standing in the dock accused of something I know I didn't do, in spite of all the circumstantial evidence pointing the finger at me, the judge can say to me, right, Shaw, you say you didn't do it - all right then, you'd better tell us who did otherwise you definitely did it!


Er, not quite how it works, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:55 AM

An intriguing description of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel(kerfuffle) Johnson

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/boris-johnson-has-achieved-impossible-he-s-been-even-worse-expected

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:22 AM

A link and interesting links to links within.


https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2018/04/05/boris-johnson-why-it-is-justifiable-and-absolutely-vital-to-hound-our-foreign-secretary-

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:18 AM

I know politicians bend the truth, Raedwulf and have often complained about the same but BoJo has turned it into an art form equaled only by Trump and Farage. He has already been sacked at least twice for lying, yet May decided he should be let loose on the world at large. He is simply not fit to be entrusted with maintaining diplomatic relations. Loose canon is the phrase that springs to mind and one that could cause a major altercation or worse at that.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 05:02 AM

Some one is telling porkies! Who is built like a porkie?


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/04/skripal-poisoning-deleted-foreign-office-tweet-leads-to-awkward-questions?CMP=tw

Brian Rix would be proud!

I would also suggest that to have the government of the day behave in such a high handed fashion, and risk a major diplomatic incident by mass expulsions, then they have a duty to the electorate to   provide irrefutable evidence to support their actions.
This they have failed to do. We need to be demanding answers.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 04:54 AM

Dave - Bending the truth is not the same as lying. Plus you have to prove that he knew that what he was saying was flatly contradicted by what he knew he was told. He may have heard what he wanted to hear, he may simply have misunderstood what he was told. If we haven't all done the former, we all know someone who has; does anyone want to deny they've done the latter? ;-)

I'm not the slightest exercised over the fact that a politician may have bent the truth, found a set of statistics that suit, cherry-picked their facts to suit their views instead of moulding their views around the facts. I expect that. Whatever they believe, they are there to toe the party line (the whip exists for that reason), and then there's the old, old joke - "How do you know when a politician is lying". The surprise, always, is a politician being honest & direct. Lying & evasion ("Before I answer let me just..." spout my party dogma...) are practically compulsory requirements for an MP, whatever ideology they espouse.

So Boris the Clown resigns or is sacked? So what? One politician is replaced by another politician who may (no pun intended) or may not be more able, more truthful, or whatever. Unless you've some personal beef against Johnson, it makes no bloody difference who is Foreign Secretary.

Steve - I'll get back to you. At this point, all I would say is, if you're going to play Devil's Advocate (done it many a time), suggest a credible alternative. Russia's "Oh, the UK did it to provide a distraction from..." not only is not credible, it also looks like a blatant attempt at diversion. Which smacks of guilty conscience. If Russia didn't, who plausibly might have?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 04:06 AM

I think he got the FS gig because everyone knew the Theresa May was a remainer - and she needed to appease the Brexit gang in her parliamentary party.
Boris came within an ace of becoming PM, if Gove hadn't queered the pitch for him.

As regards the nerve gas - I haven't a clue who did it.
Like the WMD debcle - really Boris could end up another victim of our security services - a bit like Blair.

Time somone sorted that lot out. You'd think after the Spycatcher revelations, every incoming PM would like to clean that particular Augean stables. But they all let them carry on - starting wars, subverting our democratic process like they did in 1979...with their posh boy recruitment policy and the special box at Lords.

I suppose by the time they become PM, a politician has been up to so much skullduggery , that MI5 has the goods on them.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 03:49 AM

BoJo's latest lie

A repeat of why we should not be surprised which leads with the headline

Why are we so surprised that Boris Johnson lied when he’s been sacked for lying twice before?

What astounds me most is that he was given the post of foreign secretary in the first place. Maybe Theresa May wants someone to make her look better?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 03:27 AM

If Boris is shown to have lied, he will resign.
The ministerial code demands that.

On who did it, do you choose to believe the 28 honest, liberal democracies, or the gang that lied about cheating in the Olympics, lied about its intervention in Crimea, lied about the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner, lied about their murder of Litvinenko,.........

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 03:00 AM

Yeah - seeing this play out with fingers crossed cynical truth stretcher Boris gets what he deserves this time...

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 18 - 02:54 AM

None of this detracts from the fact that our foreign secretary blatantly lied. Does no one have any comments on that?