Britain - The Official Thread

[numbnuts70]

It's probably nearly as biased as the BBC but here's an RT interview with a GB journo......

 

[Liquid]

:censored:s given: 0

 

[novcze]

If being the operative word, and in this case it has nothing at all to do with 'exposing a double standard'.

However it is, it generates a debate which is always good thing (as in 70's with Gay News). And Southern and two others are suing the UK, so we will maybe know how it was.

 

[TenEightyOne]

However it is, it generates a debate which is always good thing (as in 70's with Gay News). And Southern and two others are suing the UK, so we will maybe know how it was.

No mention has been made of blasphemy laws and nor has Britain removed her right to say that 'Allah is Gay'. What she isn't free from are the consequences of her free actions or the assessment by a border agency of the likelihood of her inciting hatred or violence in this country. As I tried to hint a few posts ago a lot of the issue is context-dependent, something which many of her defenders seem to be wilfully ignoring.

 

[Rage Racer]

Except it's not. Because comparing nerve agents that are supposed to be surrounded by huge security with one of the most widely used rifles in the world is completely ludicrous.

Of course I'm exaggerating it. But you know what I mean.
Since 1991, those chemicals were secured by the Uzbek government, and probably secured not perfectly. And they can be reproduced in another country.

Further to that it seems that much is being made on Russian news of the fact that the ingredients required for this novichok were published in a book, this means anybody could make it... or could they?

In that case: cream, eggs, soft flour, vanilla pods, water, syrup, butter, sugar, salt. Everybody can now make a perfect Baked Alaska for dessert.

Not literally everybody. Those who have sufficient skills and equipment can.

Nerve agents are not hard to make in principle, but in practice it takes specialised facilities and training to mix the substances safely. The raw materials themselves are inexpensive and generally not hard to obtain, but the lethality of the agents means they tend to be manufactured in dedicated labs. The main five nerve agents are tabun, which is the easiest to make, sarin, soman, GF and VX. The latter was used to kill Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, at Kuala Lumpur airport last year. VX is particularly stable and can remain on clothing, furniture and the ground for a long time without proper decontamination.

Sarin - another organophosphorus nerve agent - was used by a cult movement, Aum Shinrikyo, in a gas attack in Tokyo in 1995. I don't know if the A-232 is as easy to make as sarin, but if you have proper information and resources, it's probably possible in any country.

This still doesn't make any sense to me. Sergey Skripal - after being arrested - confessed, agreed to cooperate with the investigation, and thus was given the shorter sentence than he could have - 13 years. He spent 6 years in prison, then was traded and set free to go. He didn't know anything new he could tell anyone. Therefore, there was no need for Russia to silence him. If RF did want to get rid of him so much, he would be finished in the prison, before being traded. Like, "commit suicide in his cell".

Who would need Skripal dead? He isn't such an interesting person. I think he wasn't the real target. This ****storm happening between our countries now - THIS was the target of whoever did it.

The way he was poisoned. How do you imagine it? If you want to poison someone, there are poisons that leave no traces in the body, and do not endanger random people around. Put it in the food or drink and the victim will be dead in few days, and no one will find out where he ate it. Mix the poison with DMSO (a solvent that is absorbed by skin) and put it on a door handle = same. But no, they chose a rare, military-grade nerve agent that is designed as a weapon of mass destruction, that will be found on site, and will point at Russia primarily.

What does the British press say? The agent was in his daughter's luggage? And passed all of the security checks? And didn't go off in the plane? They suggested it could be in the clothing... W-w-what? Do they expect people to believe this?

But... What am I typing this for? You already know who is to blame. No matter how Russia tries to defend itself in this incident, the British government will tell to go away and shut up. Provide us sample so we might tell where it came from? No. Reveal any evidence so the world will know you're not lying? - No, just believe our words. We know that Russia is guilty, but we won't say why.
How's the investigation going? There's no need for investigation - the culprit is assigned in advance. If the investigation finds out that RF wasn't behind this crime, May and Johnson will have to back down after all the things they said. They won't do it.

What I want to say is... I'm not a big fan of our current president. I didn't vote for him yesterday. Putin isn't a honest person (but, IMO, it's not good for a leader of a great power to be too honest either). But he is neither a psycho nor idiot. Yes he doesn't like traitors (who likes them?). But do you really think he would order to use a WMD in a public area to eliminate a single renegade that has no value as a spy anymore, in a way that is guaranteed to cause a serious scandal, shortly before the elections and the World Cup?

 

[Dotini]

No mention has been made of blasphemy laws and nor has Britain removed her right to say that 'Allah is Gay'. What she isn't free from are the consequences of her free actions or the assessment by a border agency of the likelihood of her inciting hatred or violence in this country. As I tried to hint a few posts ago a lot of the issue is context-dependent, something which many of her defenders seem to be wilfully ignoring.

What exactly is the context and why is it so dire? Is it because Islam is on the way to being the most practiced religion in the land, and that foreign activists might make the native practitioners go berserk and worsen the violence/terrorism?

 

[Scaff]

What exactly is the context and why is it so dire?

It's been explained numerous times in the thread already.

Is it because Islam is on the way to being the most practiced religion in the land

No, because it's not.

and that foreign activists might make the native practitioners go berserk and worsen the violence/terrorism?

Nope, it's because the foreign activists have links to proscribed domestic groups, one of which is about to stand trial for plotting to murder a member of parliament.

However it is, it generates a debate which is always good thing (as in 70's with Gay News).

Have you actually convinced yourself of that!

And Southern and two others are suing the UK, so we will maybe know how it was.

Link to the court documents for the legal case please... . .

...as if it's blasphemy they want to try that's not going to get very far.

Now why do you continue to ignore the links she and her travelling companions have with banned groups, and the links they have to the extreme right and neo-nazis?

 

[ExigeEvan]

.
Since 1991, those chemicals were secured by the Uzbek government, and probably secured not perfectly. And they can be reproduced in another country.

So the Uzbek government have been holding nerve agents for over 20 years?

But he is neither a psycho nor idiot. Yes he doesn't like traitors (who likes them?). But do you really think he would order to use a WMD in a public area to eliminate a single renegade that has no value as a spy anymore, in a way that is guaranteed to cause a serious scandal, shortly before the elections and the World Cup?

But he has ordered the invasion of a sovereign country, he is responsible for forces that shot down a civilian airliner and he continues to rig elections.

And yet you want us to believe that he isn't mad enough to order the use of a nerve agent in London?

 

[TenEightyOne]

What exactly is the context and why is it so dire? Is it because Islam is on the way to being the most practiced religion in the land, and that foreign activists might make the native practitioners go berserk and worsen the violence/terrorism?

Depends where you are, in some places (like my hometown) only about 2% of the population visit a christianical church regularly while many more muslims in the area visit theirs regularly. As a national average the picture's very different buy it really makes no difference to me where other Brits choose to spend their time or what kind of kneeling furnishings they have a preference for.

 

[Rage Racer]

So the Uzbek government have been holding nerve agents for over 20 years?

Yes. Until they were dismantled with the help of the USA in the late '90s. At least.

But he has ordered the invasion of a sovereign country

Like your country never did this.

he is responsible for forces that shot down a civilian airliner

So, Ronald Reagan was a madman in 1988?

and he continues to rig elections.

If you want to talk about this: so you seriously think this election was rigged. Who do you think would have won it if it wasn't? I see you're such an expert on the Russian politics, maybe you'll tell us.

 

[Scaff]

If you want to talk about this: so you seriously think this election was rigged. Who do you think would have won it if it wasn't? I see you're such an expert on the Russian politics, maybe you'll tell us.

You are aware that quite a few videos from observers show what appears to be quite blatent ballot box stuffing?

That's an aside from ensuring the only viable opposition candidate can't take part.

As for why? Well plenty of example exist from around the world of corrupt governments rigging elections when they only have one candidate, so it's not exactly as if precedent doesn't exist.

But do you really think he would order to use a WMD in a public area to eliminate a single renegade that has no value as a spy anymore, in a way that is guaranteed to cause a serious scandal, shortly before the elections and the World Cup?

Why not when you can control the home media almost totally and potentially use it as a plus point for appearing strong just before an election?

Given that radioactive material has been used before, I don't see this as quite as absurd as you want to try and make it appear.

Now don't get me wrong, this is currently still not cut and dry proof, but your blind defence of Putin and the RF in this regard is no better than those asserting it has to have been Putin and the RF.

It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility at all, and plenty of reasons exist for it being possible, just as plenty do for it not being him.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Yes. Until they were dismantled with the help of the USA in the late '90s. At least.

So still, nearly 20 years since they've officially had access to them. But theyret still a threat?

Like your country never did this.

So, Ronald Reagan was a madman in 1988?



If you want to talk about this: so you seriously think this election was rigged. Who do you think would have won it if it wasn't? I see you're such an expert on the Russian politics, maybe you'll tell us.

Are we not denying Russian forces shot down MH17? Fantastic.

I think most the free world knows full well that Putin has forcefully engineered the internal political landscape to ensure he and only he is in any position to compete an election.

 

[novcze]

Link to the court documents for the legal case please... . .

...as if it's blasphemy they want to try that's not going to get very far.

obviously it's not at the court yet ... and I don't know what they want to try.

Now why do you continue to ignore the links she and her travelling companions have with banned groups, and the links they have to the extreme right and neo-nazis?

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm only saying that court should make it clear, because if not, it will only drive more people to far-right parties, is there any problem with that assumption?

btw. what is your opinion on Telford, it looks like the Police is afraid to investigate because they fear to be labelled as racists?

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm only saying that court should make it clear, because if not, it will only drive more people to far-right parties, is there any problem with that assumption?

btw. what is your opinion on Telford, it looks like the Police is afraid to investigate because they fear to be labelled as racists?

I don't think people are going to be flocking to far right parties in increased numbers just because one activist with links to white supremacists was barred from entry. I think people have different reasons for joining up which have nothing to do with free speech and "social experiments".

Also, nice swerve but I'm also not sure what the police are afraid to investigate in Telford as according to this link they seem to have dealt with hundreds of cases so far alongside the local council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-43385515

 

[TenEightyOne]

btw. what is your opinion on Telford, it looks like the Police is afraid to investigate because they fear to be labelled as racists?

You've got to be kidding. Some of the complaints about ignored reports go back to the 1980s... if you're suggesting that the British Police of the time were afraid of racist actions then you should try a different suggestion.

The scale of Telford (nowhere near comparable to Smllum or Rochdale) is still increasing as more adults come forward with historical allegations, sadly the pattern is all-too familiar: young people in vulnerable circumstances being abused over many years and having no representation in the state. You seem to be homing on a racial element for some reason whilst apparently ignoring the fact that such scandals have occurred in many parts of British life - most notably in christianical organisations and amongst the white upper classes.

 

[Scaff]

obviously it's not at the court yet ... and I don't know what they want to try.

Then they are not suing anyone!

You need to have filed court papers in the UK to be suing someone.

I'm not ignoring anything,

Then why not reference it at all as part of the discussion. as if you don't then its comes across as if you are, well, ignoring it.

I'm only saying that court should make it clear, because if not, it will only drive more people to far-right parties, is there any problem with that assumption?

Assuming that its not simply hot air from them, which right now is exactly what it is. Click-bait for far-right morons.

btw. what is your opinion on Telford, it looks like the Police is afraid to investigate because they fear to be labelled as racists?

Given that the police have investigated, the CPS filed charges, it went to court and people went to jail, no it really, really doesn't.

 

[Rage Racer]

You are aware that quite a few videos from observers show what appears to be quite blatent ballot box stuffing?

Yes, and that many of them were fake. They weren't hard to stage, but it's a great source of watches and likes for one's YouTube channel. Like this:

Spoiler

On the voting spots where the stuffing was confirmed, the results were void. And this is disgusting that some people's votes were void because of idiots who wanted likes on YouTube.

That's an aside from ensuring the only viable opposition candidate can't take part.

Navalny, you mean? Well, a person with criminal record cannot run for president in Russia. It's the law.
But even if he wasn't barred from the election, I don't think this clown playing toy ducks on YouTube would gain more than 3% of the votes. Well, 5% at best. The communist Grudinin has got twice more. Not even to mention that a large part of Navalny supporters cannot vote due to their age.

There is also a theory that Navalny is being secretly backed by the Kremlin - to tame the opposition. He urged his supporters to boycott the elections, and thus do not vote for the liberal candidates (Sobchak and Yavlinsky) and lower Putin's result. While his haters, in spite, went to the elections and voted for Putin - even if they didn't intend to before. The theory also implies that if Navalny wasn't useful to the Kremlin, he would be imprisoned for corruption crimes already.

Not sure how true this theory might be, but if you ask me about him - despite of my controversal feelings to Putin, I don't hate him enough to follow a populist like Navalny.

As for why? Well plenty of example exist from around the world of corrupt governments rigging elections when they only have one candidate, so it's not exactly as if precedent doesn't exist.

I'll give you that: if you learned more about the other candidates, and took a look at their debates (I posted some moments in the Funny News Stories thread), you would understand that there was no need for any rigging for Putin to win with a huge gap.

Given that radioactive material has been used before, I don't see this as quite as absurd as you want to try and make it appear.

I find the polonium story very weird, too, but I didn't study it carefully enough to say something confident about it yet.

Now don't get me wrong, this is currently still not cut and dry proof, but your blind defence of Putin and the RF in this regard is no better than those asserting it has to have been Putin and the RF.

It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility at all, and plenty of reasons exist for it being possible, just as plenty do for it not being him.

Well, I don't completely rule out that Russia may have been behind it either. But even in this case, the real target was not Skripal. It may have something to do with the Russian oligarchs in Britain and Putin wanting them to bring their money back to Russia before UK government starts arresting it. But that's very unlikely, IMO. Because the story the UK is telling to the world is odd and unconvincing.

So still, nearly 20 years since they've officially had access to them. But theyret still a threat?

The secrets weren't secured very tightly 20 years ago. There were illegal attempts to get the chemicals out of Uzbekistan, some of which were successful.

Another example. In 1992, the UK managed to secretly purchase a small number of T-80U main battle tanks, through a specially created firm. That was a rare tank at that time, never exported by the Soviet Union. And if such tank was used by, say, some kind of terrorist movement at that time, it would point at Russia immediately, just like this "Novichok" agent they're talking about. There's still a little number of countries that operate T-80U (surprisingly, it includes South Korea though). If multiple tanks of a rare type were possible to obtain secretly, then the idea of someone taking chemical secrets out of Uzbekistan in the '90s isn't odd at all.

Are we not denying Russian forces shot down MH17? Fantastic.

I'm not talking about this, but we can discuss it in the MH17 thread if you want to.
I mean your criterions of a country's 'madness'.
USA and Ukraine both have a record of shooting down civilian airliners (and the first had invaded plenty of sovereign countries) but you wouldn't say their governments were mad at that time, would you?

I think most the free world knows full well that Putin has forcefully engineered the internal political landscape to ensure he and only he is in any position to compete an election.

Knows from their TV. And knows it better than the Russians themselves.

So it is Putin's fault that his most popular opponents are either clowns, communists, populists or russophobes whose ideas are outright destructive for the country?
If so, what's the reason for election fraud? You've said it yourself - the election was rigged.

I'm not urging you all to like Putin. I don't like him much, either. I voted for a different candidate. But my parents, many of my relatives, and many other people around me - they voted for Putin. And I accept their choice. This is called democracy. But the free world you're talking about struggles to accept it. It's the wrong democracy when people vote for the candidate that the free world doesn't like.

It is resonable for you to think bad of our president, but there's no need to stereotype your political opponent or think he's a psycho.

 

[Scaff]

Yes, and that many of them were fake. They weren't hard to stage, but it's a great source of watches and likes for one's YouTube channel. Like this:

Spoiler

On the voting spots where the stuffing was confirmed, the results were void. And this is disgusting that some people's votes were void because of idiots who wanted likes on YouTube.

An election system that allows that to occur should raise concerns about the legitimacy of the entire process.

Navalny, you mean? Well, a person with criminal record cannot run for president in Russia. It's the law.

Handy that isn;t it!

But even if he wasn't barred from the election, I don't think this clown playing toy ducks on YouTube would gain more than 3% of the votes. Well, 5% at best. The communist Grudinin has got twice more. Not even to mention that a large part of Navalny supporters cannot vote due to their age.

Throw in personal digs.....................

There is also a theory that Navalny is being secretly backed by the Kremlin - to tame the opposition. He urged his supporters to boycott the elections, and thus do not vote for the liberal candidates (Sobchak and Yavlinsky) and lower Putin's result. While his haters, in spite, went to the elections and voted for Putin - even if they didn't intend to before. The theory also implies that if Navalny wasn't useful to the Kremlin, he would be imprisoned for corruption crimes already.

Not sure how true this theory might be, but if you ask me about him - despite of my controversal feelings to Putin, I don't hate him enough to follow a populist like Navalny.

.............and follow it up with conspiracy.

Well that's me convinced!

I'll give you that: if you learned more about the other candidates, and took a look at their debates (I posted some moments in the Funny News Stories thread), you would understand that there was no need for any rigging for Putin to win with a huge gap.

I've already explained that plenty of countries that only have a single candidate still rig the elections and stuff ballot boxes, so once gain the 'he didn't need to' doesn't really fly.

I find the polonium story very weird, too, but I didn't study it carefully enough to say something confident about it yet.

It shows a rather clear precedent.

Well, I don't completely rule out that Russia may have been behind it either. But even in this case, the real target was not Skripal. It may have something to do with the Russian oligarchs in Britain and Putin wanting them to bring their money back to Russia before UK government starts arresting it. But that's very unlikely, IMO. Because the story the UK is telling to the world is odd and unconvincing.

That all assumes that if it was a Russian operation it all went as planned, if it didn't then wider fallout than anticipated should not be a surprise.

Maybe whoever did it should have asked Rocketman for tips.

So it is Putin's fault that his most popular opponents are either clowns, communists, populists or russophobes whose ideas are outright destructive for the country?

Odd that isn't it, its almost as if only the most unlikely candidates were allowed to stand against him.

 

[novcze]

You've got to be kidding. Some of the complaints about ignored reports go back to the 1980s... if you're suggesting that the British Police of the time were afraid of racist actions then you should try a different suggestion.

ok, so what is it ... is Police understaffed, lazy or any other opinion? Don't assume I know anything about it I only heard the Police knew and reaction was insufficient for some reason.

The scale of Telford (nowhere near comparable to Smllum or Rochdale) is still increasing as more adults come forward with historical allegations, sadly the pattern is all-too familiar: young people in vulnerable circumstances being abused over many years and having no representation in the state.

So ultimately is it their parents fault combined with their socio-economic situation?

You seem to be homing on a racial element for some reason whilst apparently ignoring the fact that such scandals have occurred in many parts of British life - most notably in christianical organisations and amongst the white upper classes.

Me? ... no, I'm only adapting to definition of racism that is in effect in the UK. And if you think that I'm ignoring something you are assuming that I have knowledge of CSA cases in the UK, which I don't have.

 

[Robin]

Boris comparing the Russian World Cup to the Nazi Olympics probably wasn't the best of ideas.... hope starting WW3 was worth it

 

[Tired Tyres]

Boris comparing the Russian World Cup to the Nazi Olympics probably wasn't the best of ideas.... hope starting WW3 was worth it

Gross insensitive of him. Does he know how many Russians were killed by the Nazi's? He should be fired for that.

 

[Robin]

Gross insensitive of him. Does he know how many Russians were killed by the Nazi's? He should be fired for that.

Exactly, he has form in making ridiculously inappropriate comments and it was such a stupid thing to say at any time, let alone with the current situation.

He's our foreign secretary for goodness sake, meant to be making us friends... diffusing tense situations...!

 

[TenEightyOne]

Boris comparing the Russian World Cup to the Nazi Olympics probably wasn't the best of ideas.... hope starting WW3 was worth it

As is so often the case with Boris I can see the point he was trying to make but I wish he'd thought it through a bit better.

 

[PeterJB]

The foreign secretary needs to be the most politically-correct of all secretaries.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Good ol' Boris!

Stick it to 'em Bozza! Wiff-Waff!




#MakeBritainAnInhospitableNuclearWastelandAgain
#MakeBritainDieFromNerveAgentAttacksAgain

 

[Robin]

Remember when Boris said the Queen's River Pagent would be "like Dunkirk but more cheerful..."

 

[Liquid]

Remember when Boris said the Queen's River Pagent would be "like Dunkirk but more cheerful..."

Or when he said Libya could be the new Dubai once they've cleared all the dead bodies?

 

[MUSC4EVER]

Or that Brexit Bus...

 

[Famine]

Boris comparing the Russian World Cup to the Nazi Olympics probably wasn't the best of ideas.... hope starting WW3 was worth it

Let's be totally fair to Boris here; it wasn't his comment. He agreed with it, but he didn't actually say it.

The comment was made by Labour MP Ian Austin, during an all-party foreign affairs select committee meeting:

Austin: The idea of Putin handing over the World Cup to the captain of the winning team; the idea of Putin using this as a PR exercise to gloss over the brutal, corrupt regime for which he is responsible; it fills me with horror.
Johnson: I'm afraid that's completely right, completely right.
Austin: Putin is going to use it in the way Hitler used the 1936 Olympics.
Johnson: I think that your characterisation of what is going to happen in Moscow in the World Cup, in all the venues, yes, I think the comparison with 1936 is certainly right. I think it is an emetic prospect frankly to think of Putin glorying in this sporting event.

 

[Liquid]

What country doesn't use World Cups and Olympics to get their country over?