blandy

You keep saying that, but it's utter bollocks. The reason why Syria would deploy such a weapon is the same one they've had all along. It works. Everywhere they've used the weapon they've prevailed. Once they use them, the opposiotion fighters, with no defence against it, bluntly scarper. SYrian foces then gain the ground/City/Town from the rebels. Assad wins. There has been almost no consequence for Syria of these repeated CW attacks. Token bombing of pre-warned targets by a handful of western planes or ships, then back to "normal".

I think I've got 3 of their Albums, Si. Brilliant Sanity is superb too, and there's onother one, maybe called Breakfast which is also good, but not quite as good as the other 2.

To be completely fair Al-Qaeda was found to have used mustard gas on (I think) 3 occasions in Syria. And the Syrian regime found to have repeatedly used Sarin and Chlorine gas. There don't seem to be many saints involved.

Well that's one take. Another is that 1. Assad knows he's winning. 2. Every time he's used chemicals he's achieved his objective and won with minimal consequences from the West. He's got chemicals. Scenario, chemicals are used. Question "who did it?" There's only one thing dumber than that question. Useful idiots.

woeful isn't it.

Yeah. And vice versa, I suppose. Hypocrisy everywhere.

(again) Accusing the US of filming/staging CW attack which will be released to media next tuesday. As they did a week or two ago. Absolutely No evidence or proof offered.. Meanwhile Syrian forces circle the city, if not to assault, to stop people fleeing. Assad's henchmen must be tooling up again.

Well kind of. If only.... When in the presence of Iranians in the UK, or in Iran on Press TV he praises Iran and slates the West, turning a deaf ear and blind eye to all sorts of things you'd perhaps anticipat a fearless crusader for peace and tolerance to maybe not ignore. Pockets wedge. Comes back to UK, does a spot of anti-semitism to keep his hand in, says little about Iran, signs the occasional, low profile parliamentary "this house notes that Iran is a bit naughty..." motion. High principles my arse. Imagine it was, I dunno, Jacob-Rees-Mogg , taking money off Israel TV, where he says nothing about the depravations faced by Palestinians, sits there while some bell comes out with rampant Islamophobic tripe, praises Israel;s tolerance towards its Arab and Muslim neighbours and then came back to the UK and signed a motion "this house notes that Israel did a bad thing.." You'd rightly call him all sorts of hypocrit and laugh at claims of "only trying to come to accord..."

"Mixed" is one way of describing it. As you say, a state with multiple and severe, human rights issues and one that has been the subject of some (token - as in they have no impact on anything ) parliamentary motions from some parliamentarians, including Jezza. Then after condemning them, he takes a paid role on their media in which he fails to challenge any of these human rights violations (as far as the records show), while staying silent, on air, while anti-semitic tripe is aired (though looking uncomfortable). I can't think of many clearer examples of hypocrisy, failing to live up to your words or slippery double standards.

praising Iran's history of inclusivity, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings...!!!! That's the same Iran, the Islamic state, that has the death penalty for conversion from Islam, persecutes Bahá'ís, has policies on women, homosexuals, ...etc. etc...which are not "tolerant" However, anti-semitism and holocaust denial is tolerated and seems de-rigeur. There's the whole Shia/Sunni issue...their treatment of prisoners generally - political imprisonment (Boris's victim, Zagari-Ratcliffe, for example).

The hypocrisy. The utter hypocrisy. again. This man of principle, this campaigner for anti racism, tolerance and fairness, praising Iran for it's tolerance lack of religious bigotry and openness etc, while on the other hand you say signing parliamentary motions condemning it for the opposite of that. The hypocrisy of him taking money (£5 grand a pop) for going on their state telly, mentioning nothing about intolerance (as far as records show),

I know, absolutely scathing he's been. Here he is in London, slagging them off for their intolerance. In fact, so scathing has he been that he kept going on their state telly and getting paid for it, in order to, er, deny them, um, legitimacy, satan USA....socialsim...er... man of principle innit, see. But yeah, sign a motion....saintly.

what snot to like?

#JesuisSerena. Also it's blasphemous to depict the profit like that. M' gonna riot and put out a fat wah! Waahhh

Tubbs, Pidge, Binger, Punter, Slats, Tugga,...Aussies are (I know it's a low bar) probably better at nickos than Poms.

For a cartoon, in which exaggeration is often a key part, I think that's a tad unfair. She is Slim and blonde haired (sort of) wearing black kit. The cartoon is pretty dumb, mind.

Yeah. Good point. I dunno what would happen to the individual politicians, but it would surely improve the overall standard through natural selection. Job for life, safe seat a-holes would largely disappear.

Last sentence - absolutely agree. Middle para - there's a wealth of evidence and information regarding Russia's behaviour. Not just on Skripal, but over the Putin era. The US and other nations implemented this Magintsky rule as a direct consequence. The UK hasn't quite got round to it, for some reason. I don't suppose the preponderance of Russian billionaire's settling in the UK and various political donations has anything to do with it...wan't there that leaked memo about "don't do anything here, they fund the Tory party"? or have I misremembered? But from the panama papers, to the testimony of exiles, to intelligence and many other sources, there's a whole lot of stuff about the utter corrupt state of Russia. Specifically about the use of nerve agents or radioactive isotopes, the Litvinenko trial presented a wealth of evidence. Obviously there's yet to be a Skripal trial and there probably never will be. The Russia Today state TV video - doesn't amount to much at all. The army man says May will have had intelligence material not available publicly, that the route taken and passports used are/could well be a deliberate signal...that the true identities of the two people are not publicly known and probably not known to the intelligence services, or not wanted to be revealed. Again, yes there is not a full and comprehensive picture of everything available to the public, or (probably) known privately. But while questions and unknowns exist, alternative remotely credible explanations are lacking. That doesn't make the official account right, or totally doubt free, but it does offer the most credible version of events. Scepticism is fine, healthy even. As I repeatedly say, I prefer people to apply the same scepticism and questioning to alternative versions too. Maybe I'm looking at things not as "me" being judge and jury to a legal standard, but seeking to understand which version of events seems the best supported by background, by available info and by motive and so on. If (say) you're looking to use UK legal standards in terms of a "prosecution" then (I think) questions are good and right and "conviction" isn't possible on what's available. So if that leads to "acquittal" in (say) your mind, I'd ask who you would point the finger at and what's the evidence there? Different takes on it, maybe.

I don't mind her, generally, but her interviewing is "not the best", it almost always seems a bit forced - she never seems to relax, so how can the interviewee relax? kind of thing.

It's all the stuff about nationality of passports, route, cctv etc that many people have pointed out is not something that sits easily with how spies operate. Isn't it? How do they know? and regardless, I mean who was that fella they poisoned with plutonium or whatever it was? Very similar "sloppiness" and botched attempts etc. As we have discussed previously, that act brought no consequences. Why would Russia think it would be any different this time? The UK, and May in particular has been very reticent about taking any serious action, other than the symbolic, previously. Even this time, there's been expulsions of some diplo's, some "tough talking" and ....nothing else. Nothing of actual consequence. No implementing of financial penalties and checks against all the looted, laundered money and all the rest. There remain a number of questions about this whole Salisbury thing. What these unresolved things don't do is point to an alternative narrative, that it was the AMericans, or the UK, or was not a sanctioned Russian attack. It's not quite Occam's razor, but its not far off.

There's a slight difference between the PM (however lamentable she is) standing up in the HoC, or the Police Chief of the Major Crime unit, or the Home Secretary giving a formal statment on the identity, route taken, photographic evidence, CCTV trail, airline and flights used etc. etc. and a blogger writing something on the internet. Official statements are not "hearsay". By all means challenge the veracity of content, using evidence, they don't always have to be wholly believed, necessarily. It doesn't make one true and one untrue, but to treat the blogger's version with little or no scepticism, despite the lack of sources etc. but yet to take the UK Gov't/Police detailed stuff as "dodgy" would be, if not a "unique" outlook, one that would certainly be indicative of a particular, conspiratorial bent.

Ooh! Must look at calendar. Ta.

That seems to be something of an assumption - a leap of bad faith, perhaps. I mean when you think about it, it doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny at all. Because (as you hinted at earlier) it's quite possible for the media to report on associations with Orbis, or any other entity and still acceded to the request not to reveal "identities of intelligence agency personnel". The media is very adept at using phrases such as "someone close to...", " a senior official " or (hypothetically) "Skripal is suspected of having been recently providing information to intelligence agency personnel". Though then again, it's not "fact", it's hearsay. Maybe that's got something to do with it (the limited reporting)?

...and also Sparks... and SFA... and Ultravox