blandy

Here’s a detailed list of things and people Johnson wouldn’t **** :

Stone’s brilliant. To answer @VILLAMARV, I think div 2 has 3 good sides and 6 that are frankly low quality. It’s a battle between the 3 good ones for two places. Who can avoid the rain, which of the 3 can beat each other.

I suppose to be fair, Old style Labour never live stream/tweeted their internal no-confidence votes on Iranian state TV. Bringing democracy to the middle east in a different, kinder, way.

Yes, to americans they're "our souls" That's not it. If (say) the VP or some other unknown functionary or appointment is of the view that Trump is such a meance (as detailed in the article) then they should resign and say exactly why. Because what if one day they don't manage to hide a bit of paper, or divert his attention...or whatever to prevent some catastrophe? It's utter weaseling, as well as profoundly undemocratic to do what's been done in terms of the article. Put your name to it, weasel. That's my two Pence.

Guffaw! Bunch of absolute arseclowns

Hey Mrs Medleycot, I don’t know what to do, i’ve only got three bullets and there’s four of motley crue

Marvellous isn’t it. A United, competent, well oiled opposition machine is just what the country needs to get rid of the tories and the Brexit madness, austerity, NHS problems etc. i know, let’s have another row about Israel, that should help.

That was my feeling too. It’s not right that unelected souls should self determine to undermine elected will anonymously. If they don’t agree, then they must resign and say why, not take matters into their own hands. Cowardly and undemocratic and dangerous. If Trump’s unfit for office, to take decisions, then so is an unelected, anonymous article writer.

I don’t think I have. The sample provided by the U.K., the OPCW samples (which, unsurprisingly, match exactly the U.K. sample) and the Russian sample, could all be compared by the OPCW to meet your objective which as I understand it was to determine if the stuff from Salisbury matched alleged stolen Russian novichok. I don’t understand how you think the U.K. providing a sample to Russia changes the comparison, technically. If Russia has no sample we revert to my earlier point, that they will only say “not us guv” whatever the outcome, if they do have a sample, let them do as you propose and get a third party (OPCW) to do the comparison. Although, as I said, that rather relies on no tampering by Russia. It’s a non starter of an idea, with obvious flaws, what you proposed. sorry to irritate, it wasn’t intended, it’s just obviously flawed.

You can choose whether to link the alarm volume to the phone ringer volume, or not to do that.

That looks like somewhere people go to get stoned

Well, um, can you think of any drawbacks to that? I dunno like, say, if Russia was to tamper with any sample they use or provide to ensure a mismatch? But let's assume that Russia will behave with an exemplary level of integrity and honesty, then in that case, yeah, the third party aspect is an excellent idea - all Russia needs to do is to provide a genuine sample of their poison to the OPCW for comparison with the samples collected by the OPCW and they can clear clear their name. Sorted. Those perfidious Brits will be well and truly stuffed and shown up, and there's nothing the Brits can do to stop it.

Perhaps they also suffer from a mental or cognitive disability? ?

That's (the whole post, now just the quoted extract) true to a point, but it's Labour's position that they want to do Brexit, too. As you imply, there is no version of Brexit which could ever give us the exact same benefits as before - so their own proposal fails their own tests, which is a bit, y'know, not very good example of their fitness to govern either.

Well, there's just a tiny weakness or two in that notion isn't there? I can guarantee that the result of any investigation, under any circumstances would be like the following statement: "No, our analysis proves it wasn't us". There are no conceivable circumstances in which Putin is going to say "you know what, it turns out it was us after all. Silly me, how forgetful I am. Now you come to mention it I do remember something about an assasination attempt with a CW. Pah! Look at me and my funny forgetful ways. Richest man on the planet, and I can't remember who I ordered killed" So they'd deny involvement if it was them, they'd deny involvement if it wasn''t them. They could have said (were it the case) and as you point out "you know what, we did lose track of a load of toxins back in the day" when May made her original assertions about Russia failing to control access to its supply. But Russia said it didn't make Novichoks, then that it had destroyed all it's CWs and then that the UK /US/ etc. did it.

The independent OPCW came and took their own samples. The results from the OPCW analysis tallied with the UK DSTL analysis completely. The point about it could theoretically, under specific highly technical circumstances be made elsewhere is valid. It couldn't be made in a kitchen or workshop. It's not a DIY substance. It could only, practically be made by a state with the necessary facilities. There's a limited number of those. Now we obviously know the Soviet Union/Russia both invented and made the stuff. So yes, it's curcumstantial to a degree, but alternative theories also need to address the same issue. If it wasn't produced by Russia, who was it produced by? And how would that tally with the rest of what we know?

Ah, look at you with your quaint common sense and reason. Didn't that sort of thing used to all the rage at one time, back in the olden days? In facxt didn't that STeve Bruce fella used to adopt a similar approach. Whatever happened to him, anyway? The one who came here a few years back and sorted out the defence..? He might have been a bit rubbish at coaching attacking play, but he could make a defence solid. Perhaps we should get him back to replace the current "funky" numpty, whoever he is.

Do you really not know the answers to that? They include New Labs at Porton down...the poison was made there, and the attack was done by the UK to distract from how badly Brexit is going...sacrificing Skripal who we don't need any more. Or a grotesque provocation rudely staged by the UK and US intelligence agencies Or it was done by the UK to smear Putin right after his re-election or to destroy Russia's peacemaking reputation in Syria (yeah, really) Ukraine did it, using leftover CWs from the soviet era The one you posted about non-state hoodlums Bill Browder, a putin critic was behind it The USA did it with stuff they got from decomissioned CWQ facilities in Uzbekistan The UK made the novichok and used it on the Skripals The Russian MFA has tweeted all kinds of stuff, RT and Sputnik ditto.

That's not accurate, though is it? We were told that Skripal's car was seen on cctv at 9:15 on the Sunday morning. Afaik we were not told that he did or did not return home after that time or that one or two people were in the car?. The first question to ask, surely is where was he/they between 9:30 and 1:30. So for example, dId he nip out for a paper, or some milk and bread? then return home and they later went out together for the afternoon? or were both of them out for the morning, then they returned home after middday, got changed, and went back out again shortly after? If so the theory put to us that the toxin was put on the door in the morning, that's entirely consistent with either of those two. You're right there's no account of them returning to the house, but there's no account of them being elsewhere either. So sceptically , there's a gap in the information there. But it absolutely does not make the official version non-credible in that instance. Nor does it make an alternative explanation/theory more likely. Secondly, on the timing of the door handle contamination, I don't think we've been told they were contaminated at 9 am at all. Maybe a blogger or paper has speculated that? We have been told that the toxin was put on the door after 9 and before or around midday. In regards of them recieving different doses, "quick acting" and both being affected at the same moment etc. that's all untrue or assumption/guesswork. Either way it's not a sound basis to disprove or bring the UK account into doubt, or support more strongly a different theory/explanation. Absolutely there are gaps and confusing aspects of the "tale" and the Police have said they need more info in some areas. But there is nothing which suggests an alternative explanation is more credible or likely and much that suggests the ones you put forward are less likely.

I agree with both the above. Of course it's valid to have a level of scepticism regarding the things our government, or authorities tell us. It's the sign of a naturally inquisitive mind and is healthy. And of course there's plenty of precedent of us being misled and lied to. Dodgy dossiers and all. So not being sceptical would be unduly lax. There's a difference though between being sceptical of what we're told by our Government, or Police and starting not just from a position that they're outright lying to us, but on top of that to utterly fail to apply any apparent sceptisism to the "alternative" narrative, put out by the Kremlin, or by whoever lese might want to come up with a "theory". Because for all the mendacity sometimes exhibitied by the UK authorities, the level of propoganda and disinformation emanating from Moscow or from the useful idiot, ten a penny conspiracy theorists is in a different order all together. It frankly astounds me that so many seemingly intelligent people, and also Jeremy Corbyn, start from this anti-western, pro-Kremlin stance, exerting much effort and contortionism to pick at what we're told by the UK, whilst happily nodding through any old tat from Moscow, however incredible and unsupported by the slightest evidence it might be. So yeah, of course apply sceptisism and questioning to what our Gov't tells us, but at least, if not more so, apply the same standard to the "alternative explanations" coming from parties who have an interest in stirring the pot, covering up nefarious deeds, self publicity, pulling in hits and/or sewing the seeds of distrust within our society. Or alternatively, just put on some tin foil headwear and have away at it furiously on their blogs and twitters. Somewhere along the line a balanced critical approach fell down a crack. It's led us to Trump and the hard right and hard left nutters currently having their moment in the sun.

This. Definitely

To be fair, we both care, but I care more for the birds than the cats, and Ruge the other way round, perhaps.

What do you mean by "meant to be" - because I disagree. They're domesticated animals. They're quite capable and amenable to having some restriction placed on their roaming. They should be restricted - both for their own benefit (e.g. if they live near busy roads) and for reducing the harm to other creatures (esp. during bird breeding season, for example). Personally, I'm not keen on neighbours cats crapping in my garden, killing fledglings and small birds in my garden and so on. If someone's dog was to do that we'd be rightly angry - "you've just let your dog crap on my garden and kill birds in my garden" so why is it "meant to be" OK for fecking cats to do it? I don't want to hurt any animals, but I have to chase cats out of my garden all the time to spare the lives of birds. Like Dave I've got a supersoaker which I keep ready in the summer. Most local cats scarper as soon as they hear my door handle click, now. People need to treat their cats better and look after them better.

We do. you’re right. Though a part of that is of course irresponsible cat ownership. I don’t hate cats, btw. They’re beautiful creatures for the most part. But humans letting them out, without bells and during the nesting season, or letting them run completely wild are the instigators of the slaughter cats do. Far too many people don’t look after cats properly and have no respect for wildlife.