Britain - The Official Thread

[Lizard]

My house was 4° indoors this morning I really am that tight with money

You can be safe in the knowledge that I am never coming to visit.

 

[Touring Mars]

Counter-terrorism police are investigating an attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter that has left both critically ill. The pair were discovered on a park bench near a restaurant (Zizzi's) where they had apparently been, and were found by passers-by who spotted them foaming at the mouth and incapacitated. MI5 and the UK government are already pointing fingers at the Kremlin - Putin is on record having said that 'traitors' will "kick the bucket". ITV interviewed Andrei Lugovoi (the man widely suspected of involvement in the poisoning/assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in the UK) where he made some bizarre (and, in my opinion, deliberately obtuse) comments suggesting that the former Russian spy 'may have poisoned himself', 'got food poisoning' or 'had a heart attack' - seeming to ignore that his daughter also met a similar fate I've had a pretty awful meal at Zizzi's myself, but I've never seen a case of food poisoning that leaves people foaming at the mouth and close to death a few minutes later...

 

[Robin]

According to the Daily Mail they were poisoned with a nerve agent, possibly Sarin or VX.

All this has echoes of how Kim Jong Un's brother was assassinated at an Airport in Malaysia.

Nice of them to be doing all these things in public spreading some of the most deadly chemicals known to man all over the place but hey at least in wasn't Polonium this time

If anyone hasn't watched McMafia now's the time to start!

 

[PeterJB]

I always knew Salisbury was stuck in the 1960s...

 

[Liquid]

In totally unconnected news, the lead news anchor of a state broadcaster in Russia warned traitors and potential traitors about moving to the UK.

 

[Dotini]

Now ex-spook Christopher Steele and the Trump dossier are seemingly connected to the ailing doubleagent, Col Skripal. A bizarre mystery, straight out of a John le Carré novel.

Sergei Skripal, centre, and Christopher Steele, left, who compiled the notorious dossier on President Trump that detailed his allegedly corrupt dealings with Vladimir Putin. Right: a police officer wearing protective equipment at one of the scenes of the investigation CREDIT: PA WIRE/ITV NEWS/LNP

• Robert Mendick, chief reporter
  
• Hayley Dixon
  
• Patrick Sawer, senior reporter
  
• Luke Heighton

7 MARCH 2018 • 10:24PM


Asecurity consultant who has worked for the company that compiled the controversial dossier on Donald Trump was close to the Russian double agent poisoned last weekend, it has been claimed.

The consultant, who The Telegraph is declining to identify, lived close to Col Skripal and is understood to have known him for some time.

Col Skripal, who is in intensive care and fighting for his life after an assassination attempt on Sunday, was recruited by MI6 when he worked for the British embassy in Estonia, according to the FSB, the Russian intelligence agency.

 

[ExigeEvan]

The use of a nerve agent on UK territory is huge.

I believe the UK government are currently keeping the type know secret for now, but supposedly it's a rare type. Hopefully it can atleast be traced to source manufacturer even if that doesn't provide the full story of who used it and why.

Thoughts to the members of the emergency services that have also been affected by this.

 

[Liquid]

The use of a nerve agent on UK territory is huge.

I believe the UK government are currently keeping the type know secret for now, but supposedly it's a rare type.

Off the top of my head, are sarin and ricin nerve agents?

 

[Famine]

Off the top of my head, are sarin and ricin nerve agents?

Sarin is, ricin isn't - it's a cytotoxin.

I'm just curious why the deployment of a chemical weapon that has caused injuries to 21 people - largely civilian - and put three close to death isn't a terrorist attack.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Sarin is, ricin isn't - it's a cytotoxin.

I'm just curious why the deployment of a chemical weapon that has caused injuries to 21 people - largely civilian - and put three close to death isn't a terrorist attack.

Would it be classed as a terrorist attack if it was done by another country?

 

[Rage Racer]

MI5 and the UK government are already pointing fingers at the Kremlin - Putin is on record having said that 'traitors' will "kick the bucket".

In totally unconnected news, the lead news anchor of a state broadcaster in Russia warned traitors and potential traitors about moving to the UK.

Perhaps they implied that the traitors will get dumped by their new bosses?

 

[Famine]

Would it be classed as a terrorist attack if it was done by another country?

Yes, depending.

There isn't a uniform, internationally accepted definition of terrorism. However, common threads include:
* Acts of violence, or threats of violence
* Perpetrated against people or property
* Indiscriminate victims, regardless of intended target(s)
* Political, religious or ideological objectives
* Committed by anyone other than a legal combatant (people who aren't legal combatants include spies, undercover agents and child soldiers, weirdly)

The reason why there's no accepted definition is that any attempt to define it covers a lot of acts that aren't really terrorism, particularly when it comes to fledgling nations fighting for self-determination, and self-defence. Plus every spree shooting would qualify as terrorism, when it isn't really.

Nevertheless, if it turns out that this ex-agent was the target for a killing for political reasons (like... being a disgraced ex-agent), committed by other agents, and injuring several other civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the time, I'd say that it fits the bill.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

100 Military personnel drafted to Salisbury to 'assist' Police.

 

[Robin]

100 Military personnel drafted to Salisbury to 'assist' Police.

You just know theres something they aren't telling us if they have brought the Army in.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Sarin is, ricin isn't - it's a cytotoxin.

I'm just curious why the deployment of a chemical weapon that has caused injuries to 21 people - largely civilian - and put three close to death isn't a terrorist attack.

I personally wouldn't consider it a terrorist attack because I feel it's too targeted and now driven by an attempt to scare the general population/wider society.

I don't think the perpetrators considered the wider effect in the plan, or if they did they didn't consider it worthy of controlling.

My initial assumption was that their food was positioned, but now I reckon they were both sprayed by some kind of aerosol. Those affected probably had physical contact with the intended victims.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The reason why there's no accepted definition is that any attempt to define it covers a lot of acts that aren't really terrorism, particularly when it comes to fledgling nations fighting for self-determination, and self-defence. Plus every spree shooting would qualify as terrorism, when it isn't really.

Nevertheless, if it turns out that this ex-agent was the target for a killing for political reasons (like... being a disgraced ex-agent), committed by other agents, and injuring several other civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the time, I'd say that it fits the bill.

I'm not sure a targeted murder would include the 'cause intimidation' part of the definition of terrorism. If this is a political act then it satisfies the 'political execution' definition of assassaniation, I'd say.

 

[Dotini]

In one of the John le Carré novels, The Honourable Schoolboy, the British secret intelligence service murders one of its own agents, gone rogue in a foreign country. Life imitates art.

 

[Famine]

I'm not sure a targeted murder would include the 'cause intimidation' part of the definition of terrorism.

There isn't a single definition of terrorism... However, if there were and it included "cause intimidation", I reckon 21 random people being injured by chemical weapons and the deployment of military personnel would result in a few people being a tad concerned.

The UN always trots this line out when referring to terrorism:
"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

I imagine Skripal and his daughter were a bit frightened by collapsing, barfing and soiling themselves - although I suspect the intent was to kill, rather than worry. It was a criminal act and, although we can't be sure at this point, seems to be for political purposes.

I don't think that the UN's version adequately covers the indiscriminate nature of the victims though.

The UK's definition under the Terrorism Act 2000 is, as usual, legally wordy:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious[, racial][3] or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

I've bolded up the bits this event meets.

The one section is might meet, but arguably might not, is 1(b) - the use, or threat, is designed to influence policy, or intimidate the public or a section of the public. For now it looks like the use was designed to kill a dude, and any collateral damage was simply incidental to the plan. As it didn't use firearms or explosives that we know of, it doesn't satisfy the condition of 3 which overrules 1(b).

 

[ExigeEvan]

There isn't a single definition of terrorism... However, if there were and it included "cause intimidation", I reckon 21 random people being injured by chemical weapons and the deployment of military personnel would result in a few people being a tad concerned.

Who in the wider population is concerned?

A whole lot of squaddies are going to be taking their CBRN drills a bit more seriously, something they haven't done for about 25 years now.

 

[Famine]

Who in the wider population is concerned?

Dunno, I haven't read the papers - although I imagine they're stoking it up like they did with Litvinenko.

But it doesn't need to be a nationwide panic to class as terrorism, just the people who are at the scene - and by most definitions, just one intended target. I don't know anyone who was jittery after the Ariana Grande concert bombing, or the London Bridge attack, or even 7/7, and they were all pretty terroristy.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Dunno, I haven't read the papers - although I imagine they're stoking it up like they did with Litvinenko.

But it doesn't need to be a nationwide panic to class as terrorism, just the people who are at the scene - and by most definitions, just one intended target. I don't know anyone who was jittery after the Ariana Grande concert bombing, or the London Bridge attack, or even 7/7, and they were all pretty terroristy.

There was a huge visible police response to all those events, so whilst concern may not be the correct word everyone was certainly conscious of the threat.

I don't think many are too worried that they're at risk of a nerve agent attack. Perhaps we should be until we know of this is a state sponsored attack against a specific target (we can all speculate).

 

[Famine]

There was a huge visible police response to all those events, so whilst concern may not be the correct word everyone was certainly conscious of the threat.

There was a huge visible police response to this one too - one of the three people most seriously injured was a policeman.

And now there's a huge visible military response...

 

[ExigeEvan]

There was a huge visible police response to this one too - one of the three people most seriously injured was a policeman.

And now there's a huge visible military response...

On the scene of the crime yes, but not nationally.

The military response is because the CBRN specialists in this country are military personnel. As a minimum every soldier does annual training and has an issues CBRN mask, coverall, gloves and a DPK kit. But again, this is only at the crime scene. Certainly no reports of units at major public events.

 

[Famine]

On the scene of the crime yes, but not nationally.

... okay now I'm confused:

But it doesn't need to be a nationwide panic to class as terrorism, just the people who are at the scene - and by most definitions, just one intended target. I don't know anyone who was jittery after the Ariana Grande concert bombing, or the London Bridge attack, or even 7/7, and they were all pretty terroristy.

There was a huge visible police response to all those events, so whilst concern may not be the correct word everyone was certainly conscious of the threat.

There was a huge visible police response to this one too - one of the three people most seriously injured was a policeman.

And now there's a huge visible military response...

On the scene of the crime yes, but not nationally.

I pointed out that it doesn't need to have a nationwide response to be terrorism and cited three terrorist events where there wasn't a nationwide response. Are you saying that there was a visible nationwide police response to them?

Where? Only I lived in the southeast during 7/7 and saw nothing. I flew abroad in the week of the Manchester Arena bombing and saw nothing. I was a bit more removed when the London Bridge attack happened, but still in the nation - our local policing remained unchanged.

Other than the coverage in the news, I wouldn't have even known these things had happened. Like Salisbury.

But even so, the first point remains that it doesn't need to affect the entire general public, just those at the scene.

 

[Dotini]

But even so, the first point remains that it doesn't need to affect the entire general public, just those at the scene.

There's bunch of wealthy Russian expatriates living in London. Maybe Londoners need to be worried about Russian chem weapons being used in their midst? A healthy sense of real alarm and danger might indeed be in order.

 

[ECGadget]

There's bunch of wealthy Russian expatriates living in London. Maybe Londoners need to be worried about Russian chem weapons being used in their midst? A healthy sense of real alarm and danger might indeed be in order.

We are not really ones to be alarmed if I am to be honest. The army and RAF being deployed had raised a few eyebrows and got people talking for certain, but it has not stopped anybody going outside and going about their business. For the most part, that is just the British way. We got on as best as circumstances allowed during world wars, we got on during the IRA bombing us (I was a child living not too far from the docklands in 1996), we got on during the 7/7 bombings, we continued on last year and we will continue on now. The stiff upper lip is in many ways an accurate stereotype.

 

[ExigeEvan]

... okay now I'm confused:




I pointed out that it doesn't need to have a nationwide response to be terrorism and cited three terrorist events where there wasn't a nationwide response. Are you saying that there was a visible nationwide police response to them?

Where? Only I lived in the southeast during 7/7 and saw nothing. I flew abroad in the week of the Manchester Arena bombing and saw nothing. I was a bit more removed when the London Bridge attack happened, but still in the nation - our local policing remained unchanged.

Other than the coverage in the news, I wouldn't have even known these things had happened. Like Salisbury.

But even so, the first point remains that it doesn't need to affect the entire general public, just those at the scene.

Yes I remember seeing armed police at numerous occasions in response to those terrorist attacks. Including more recently seeing armed police at my local shopping centre after the London Bridge event and large vehicle barriers at Swansea seafront for the airshow.

I've certainly seen more armed police outside gigs in Cardiff than you used to (horses were more common in the past).

All anecdotal but I tend to notice police armed with a G36 perhaps a bit more than most.

 

[Touring Mars]

Perhaps they implied that the traitors will get dumped by their new bosses?

While it remains a remote possibility, it frankly beggars belief that the UK government/MI6 would deliberately endanger hundreds of innocent people including police officers simply to - well, to do what? Meanwhile, Russian state media, the Russian Embassy, former Russian spies (themselves suspected of murder) and no less that the Russian premier have made a slew of sarcastic, obtuse, provocative and downright threatening remarks that have done very little to assuage suspicions that Russia is behind a chemical weapons attack on foreign soil. Maybe if Russia were to act with even the slightest hint of decorum and an appropriate level of sincerity then others might be more willing to give them the benefit of doubt.

 

[ExigeEvan]

As my boss recently found out, Redrow homes weren't designed for the kind of snow we had last week and it's completely acceptable for people to have snow drifts in their loft space!

What is this world coming to...

 

[Rage Racer]

While it remains a remote possibility, it frankly beggars belief that the UK government/MI6 would deliberately endanger hundreds of innocent people including police officers simply to - well, to do what?

Well, if GRU can endanger civilians, why MI6 (or any other intel agencies, not necessarily British) can't?..
Of course there was a risk, but no one died after all.
Besides, a danger to innocent people makes it even more scary, so it's excellent to...

To do what? To fuel anti-Russian hysteria on the background of presidental elections and the upcoming FIFA World Championship in Russia. The alleged interference in the Brexit referendum was not enough to do it. But a chemical attack, on the British soil, with 20+ people being injured, is a wholy different thing. And if this was the target, they got it. Boris Johnson already said about boycotting the championship. Also, this:

I saw the comments on BBC's YouTube channel and... Jeez. Some people call it a terrorist attack, carried out by Russia. The propaganda surely works.

Meanwhile, Russian state media, the Russian Embassy, former Russian spies (themselves suspected of murder) and no less that the Russian premier have made a slew of sarcastic, obtuse, provocative and downright threatening remarks that have done very little to assuage suspicions that Russia is behind a chemical weapons attack on foreign soil. Maybe if Russia were to act with even the slightest hint of decorum and an appropriate level of sincerity then others might be more willing to give them the benefit of doubt.

I understand what you mean. But I also can imagine what they thought of. Like, "the traitor got what he deserves". But that doesn't necessarily mean they know who did it. Besides, if it really was an operation by GRU, I don't think the ambassador and the journos from the state media would be told about that.

And I didn't find anything Medvedev said about this.

Was there a reason for Russia to poison Skripal, who's been set free in 2010 and was living in the UK since then (so he wasn't a threat to RF anymore)? Probably yes - to send a message to other potential traitors. But... why now? This isn't the best time. Strangely, Skripal was okay when he was in a Russian prison, but somebody suddenly needed him dead 8 years later.

UPD. Theresa May spoke about the incident, pointing finger at Russia. Not surprising.

It is now clear, that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia.

Mrs. May is probably not aware that chemical synthesis isn't something that belongs to a particular country. Kim Jong Nam was poisoned by VX, a nerve agent that was developed by Britain. Does it mean the UK was behind it? I guess not.

I searched for some info about the A-232 "Novichok" that is mentioned by May, and found something. According to Vil Mirzayanov, a chemist who's been involved in the "Foliant" program (under which the Novichok was developed) and moved to USA in 1996, the precursors for the synthesys are usual organophosphate compounds that can be produced on a chemical factory (that makes fertilizers or pesticides). Thus, the A-232 can be recieved secretly, and anywhere around the world. The formula was published in Mirzayanov's book. So, it's a mistake to think that only Russia can posess this compound.