Home
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
About Us & RulesCorbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
4 posters
Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3 
Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:45 pm
Theresa May slammed Jeremy Corbyn for his lack of support over the Russian spy poisoning crisis. The Prime Minister told Jezza:
“There is a consensus across the backbenches of this House. I am only sorry that this consesnsus does not go as far as the Right Honourable Gentleman, who could have taken the opportunity as the UK government has done to condemn the cuplability of the Russian state.”
This will lead all the news bulletins tonight, the press will crucify Corbyn tomorrow, his own Labour MPs have disowned him and sided with the PM.
In this type situation Guido would normally expect the leader of the oppostion’s spin doctor to back pedal in the Lobby briefing huddle that follows, he would “clarify” and nuance the wording. Emphasise the more conventional parts of the argument to soften the inevitably hostile headlines coming tomorrow. When that spin-doctor is Seumas Milne however it seems there was to be no compromising on Putin’s line. Under intense questioning he refused to say that the Labour Party’s leader accepted the Russian state was at fault:
“The government has access to information and intelligence on this matter which others don‘t. However, also there is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly. So, I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons.”
When Lobby hacks pressed Milne as to if Corbyn believed Russia was responsible for the attack, Milne said the PM continued to leave open the possibility that Russia had lost control of the nerve agent. Milne prefers to doubt MI6 and give the benefit of the doubt to the FSB….
https://order-order.com/2018/03/14/seumas-sticks-line-refuses-condemn-russia/
Can anyone imagine the countries security under Corbyn?
It does not bare thinking about
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:28 pm
The title is absolute bollocks, but you can't expect anything else from the weekend druggie.
Jeremy Corbyn's fourfold response to the Salisbury Attack: •Outright Condemnation •Uphold the Rule of Law •Abide by International Agreements •Respect Human Rights
Conservatives are taking money from the Russians and the Saudis and are thus beholden to them.
Jeremy Corbyn's fourfold response to the Salisbury Attack: •Outright Condemnation •Uphold the Rule of Law •Abide by International Agreements •Respect Human Rights
Conservatives are taking money from the Russians and the Saudis and are thus beholden to them.
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:31 pm
lol, sassy still being stupid
Its about him condmning Russia for this attack
He did not do that
We know he condemned the attack dummy
Its about him condmning Russia for this attack
He did not do that
We know he condemned the attack dummy
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:32 pm
The Conservative party is in the pocket of foreign powers that represent a threat to the national security of Britain. It is a grotesquely under-reported national scandal, lost amid a hysterical Tory campaign to delegitimise the Labour party with false allegations of treason. If Labour had received £820,000 from Russian-linked oligarchs and companies in the past 20 months – and indeed £3m since 2010 – the media outrage would be deafening. But this is the Tory party, so there are no cries of treachery, of being in league with a hostile foreign power, of threatening the nation’s security.
When questioned about the Russian donations to the Tory party, the chancellor, Philip Hammond, pointedly refused to return the money. “There are people in this country who are British citizens, who are of Russian origin,” he protested. “I don’t think we should taint them, or should tar them, with Putin’s brush.” How noble: a Tory challenging the demonisation of migrants.
Before we get out the bunting, though, let’s look at one donation as an example. It was 2014, and Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Russia’s former deputy finance minister, paid the princely sum of £160,000 to play tennis with David Cameron and Boris Johnson. In total, since 2012 – when the Electoral Commission initially declared her an “impermissible donor”, before subsequently allowing her to donate – she has handed the Tories £514,000.
I put it to you gently that if Labour took half a million pounds from the wife of a former Cuban minister, there would be no debate about whether this represented a scandalous financial relationship with the Cuban regime. Other examples include £400,000 from Gérard Lopez, a businessmen on the board of a company that partnered with Russian banks that had sanctions imposed on them during the Ukraine crisis.
It goes further than that. By last October, Tory MPs had received four times more money from Russia’s state-run Russia Today TV channel than Labour MPs: it is welcome that the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has said that his colleagues should no longer appear on the channel. The Conservative party is notoriously dependent on donations from the financial sector. The tens of millions of pounds poured into the Tories’ war chest are not offered as acts of charity and munificence.
In 2011, for example, the Financial Times reported that “even donors admit that Tory MPs’ desire to cut the 50p top rate of income tax is because these rich City donors are so close to the party”. This same City of London is awash with dodgy money from Russia. No wonder, then, that in 2014 a secret government document revealed plans to stop any sanctions against Russia that might damage the City. Labour has attempted to introduce legislation that could prevent certain Russian individuals entering Britain or block their assets: how mysterious, then, that the Tories blocked it for “technical reasons”.
How is it morally acceptable for the Tories to take the Russian or Saudi shilling?
Then there are the links to other regimes that combine contempt for human rights with a threat to our national security. Take Saudi Arabia, ruled by a totalitarian, fanatical regime that likes to slice the heads off gay men and dissidents, which treats women with what can only be described as barbarism, and which exports international extremism. In the two years or so after it began bombing Yemen – including with British weapons – Tory MPs received £99,396 from the Saudi regime in the form of gifts, travel expenses and consultancy fees. Hammond was one of them: he received a watch worth nearly two grand from the Saudi ambassador.
In the past five years, moreover, Saudi Arabia and other autocracies spent £700,000 on luxury trips for MPs, more than 80% of whom were Tories. Just under £200,000 of that was money from Saudi Arabia to pay for the excursions of 41 MPs, 40 of whom were Conservatives. Now why would they possibly be doing that? Could it be – given that MPs receive nothing from our democratic allies for such trips – that this is part of a clear PR offensive, an attempt to secure influence over the Conservative government?
Indeed, Rehman Chishti – the newly appointed vice-chair of the Conservative party for communities – received £2,000 a month from the Riyadh-based King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies between March 2016 and January 2018. Although the parliamentary commissioner for standards saw no reason to take action, it is worth noting his rampant pro-Saudi dictatorship sympathies. His Twitter feed includes boasting of being congratulated by the Saudi dictator for being re-elected as an MP in 2015, hosting lectures by Saudi officials, and leading Tory parliamentary delegations to Saudi Arabia. His colleague, Daniel Kawczynski, goes on TV to justify the barbaric Saudi assault on Yemen, crows about writing the “most pro-Saudi book ever written by a British politician”, but then threatened to sue when this was linked with went on a trip worth £6,722.14 paid for by the Saudi regime.
And then there is the Tories’ financial heart. The Qatari dictatorship owns three times more property in London than the Queen, and more than the mayoralty. Indeed, the Qatar Investment Authority owns Canary Wharf, the Shard and Harrods. Let’s be clear: the Qatari regime has backed extremist and terrorist organisations, as have wealthy individuals under its jurisdiction. As Paddy Ashdown put it in 2015, David Cameron failed to put sufficient pressure on Qatar and Saudi Arabia to stop funding extremism, leading Ashdown to “worry about the closeness between the Conservative party and rich Arab Gulf individuals”. Consider Theresa May’s refusal to publish a report on foreign funding of extremism. Well, it would hardly go down well with the Gulf states, which are so deeply embedded in Tory milieus, would it?
What a farce. There was rolling coverage smearing Jeremy Corbyn as a traitor based on the testimonies of a single crank from the former Czechoslovakia. And yet the Tories are at the centre of a web spun by the Russian and Gulf regimes. Hundreds of people in Salisbury are now washing their belongings after traces of a nerve agent were found at the restaurant suspected to be the location where a Russian spy, and his daughter and a British policeman were poisoned.How is it morally acceptable for the Tories to take the Russian or Saudi shilling? What are the practical implications of this? And where is the never-ending media outrage over it? The answers to these three questions paint a damning picture indeed.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/12/tory-links-russia-saudi-links-corbyn-spy-extremism
When questioned about the Russian donations to the Tory party, the chancellor, Philip Hammond, pointedly refused to return the money. “There are people in this country who are British citizens, who are of Russian origin,” he protested. “I don’t think we should taint them, or should tar them, with Putin’s brush.” How noble: a Tory challenging the demonisation of migrants.
Before we get out the bunting, though, let’s look at one donation as an example. It was 2014, and Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Russia’s former deputy finance minister, paid the princely sum of £160,000 to play tennis with David Cameron and Boris Johnson. In total, since 2012 – when the Electoral Commission initially declared her an “impermissible donor”, before subsequently allowing her to donate – she has handed the Tories £514,000.
I put it to you gently that if Labour took half a million pounds from the wife of a former Cuban minister, there would be no debate about whether this represented a scandalous financial relationship with the Cuban regime. Other examples include £400,000 from Gérard Lopez, a businessmen on the board of a company that partnered with Russian banks that had sanctions imposed on them during the Ukraine crisis.
It goes further than that. By last October, Tory MPs had received four times more money from Russia’s state-run Russia Today TV channel than Labour MPs: it is welcome that the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has said that his colleagues should no longer appear on the channel. The Conservative party is notoriously dependent on donations from the financial sector. The tens of millions of pounds poured into the Tories’ war chest are not offered as acts of charity and munificence.
In 2011, for example, the Financial Times reported that “even donors admit that Tory MPs’ desire to cut the 50p top rate of income tax is because these rich City donors are so close to the party”. This same City of London is awash with dodgy money from Russia. No wonder, then, that in 2014 a secret government document revealed plans to stop any sanctions against Russia that might damage the City. Labour has attempted to introduce legislation that could prevent certain Russian individuals entering Britain or block their assets: how mysterious, then, that the Tories blocked it for “technical reasons”.
How is it morally acceptable for the Tories to take the Russian or Saudi shilling?
Then there are the links to other regimes that combine contempt for human rights with a threat to our national security. Take Saudi Arabia, ruled by a totalitarian, fanatical regime that likes to slice the heads off gay men and dissidents, which treats women with what can only be described as barbarism, and which exports international extremism. In the two years or so after it began bombing Yemen – including with British weapons – Tory MPs received £99,396 from the Saudi regime in the form of gifts, travel expenses and consultancy fees. Hammond was one of them: he received a watch worth nearly two grand from the Saudi ambassador.
In the past five years, moreover, Saudi Arabia and other autocracies spent £700,000 on luxury trips for MPs, more than 80% of whom were Tories. Just under £200,000 of that was money from Saudi Arabia to pay for the excursions of 41 MPs, 40 of whom were Conservatives. Now why would they possibly be doing that? Could it be – given that MPs receive nothing from our democratic allies for such trips – that this is part of a clear PR offensive, an attempt to secure influence over the Conservative government?
Indeed, Rehman Chishti – the newly appointed vice-chair of the Conservative party for communities – received £2,000 a month from the Riyadh-based King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies between March 2016 and January 2018. Although the parliamentary commissioner for standards saw no reason to take action, it is worth noting his rampant pro-Saudi dictatorship sympathies. His Twitter feed includes boasting of being congratulated by the Saudi dictator for being re-elected as an MP in 2015, hosting lectures by Saudi officials, and leading Tory parliamentary delegations to Saudi Arabia. His colleague, Daniel Kawczynski, goes on TV to justify the barbaric Saudi assault on Yemen, crows about writing the “most pro-Saudi book ever written by a British politician”, but then threatened to sue when this was linked with went on a trip worth £6,722.14 paid for by the Saudi regime.
And then there is the Tories’ financial heart. The Qatari dictatorship owns three times more property in London than the Queen, and more than the mayoralty. Indeed, the Qatar Investment Authority owns Canary Wharf, the Shard and Harrods. Let’s be clear: the Qatari regime has backed extremist and terrorist organisations, as have wealthy individuals under its jurisdiction. As Paddy Ashdown put it in 2015, David Cameron failed to put sufficient pressure on Qatar and Saudi Arabia to stop funding extremism, leading Ashdown to “worry about the closeness between the Conservative party and rich Arab Gulf individuals”. Consider Theresa May’s refusal to publish a report on foreign funding of extremism. Well, it would hardly go down well with the Gulf states, which are so deeply embedded in Tory milieus, would it?
What a farce. There was rolling coverage smearing Jeremy Corbyn as a traitor based on the testimonies of a single crank from the former Czechoslovakia. And yet the Tories are at the centre of a web spun by the Russian and Gulf regimes. Hundreds of people in Salisbury are now washing their belongings after traces of a nerve agent were found at the restaurant suspected to be the location where a Russian spy, and his daughter and a British policeman were poisoned.How is it morally acceptable for the Tories to take the Russian or Saudi shilling? What are the practical implications of this? And where is the never-ending media outrage over it? The answers to these three questions paint a damning picture indeed.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/12/tory-links-russia-saudi-links-corbyn-spy-extremism
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:34 pm
At the Kremlin Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin settles into his golden throne to watch Prime Minister’s Questions and the accompanying statement. As a jack-booted servant flicks over from Russia Today, Vlad wonders aloud: “Who’s the thin old beardy bloke in the red tie?”
“That’s Jeremy Corbyn”, replies the trembling aide. “Who?” demands Putin, never more than a moment from a nuclear-level rage, or worse, offering to make an adviser’s tea. “You know, Mr President. Codename COB…”
The almond-eyed tyrant purses his lips then raises a smile. An FSB man never forgets a codename.
“Ah, da, da,” he whispers. “Activate Agent COB…”
https://order-order.com/2018/03/14/putin-cackles-kremlin-activates-agent-cob/
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:35 pm
Litvinenko widow warns Tories over Russian donations
Marina Litvinenko says party risks tainting its reputation in light of Sergei Skripal poisoning
The Conservative party is facing pressure to return Russian donations after the attempted murder of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil.
Marina Litvinenko, the widow of another former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, whose murder is believed to have been carried out under the direction of Russia’s FSB spy agency, said the Tories risked tainting their reputation if they held on to the cash.
“You need to be very accurate where this money came from before you accept this money,” she told Sky News. “If you identify it’s dirty money [you’re] just not allowed to accept it because I think reputation is very important. [The] reputation of the Conservative party in the UK and all around the world needs to be clear.”
The Sunday Times reported that Russian oligarchs and their associates had registered donations of £826,100 to the Tories since Theresa May entered No 10.
A spokesman said: “All donations to the Conservative party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them and comply fully with the law.”
Litvinenko accused May of failing to act to prevent a reoccurrence of the type of attack to which her husband fell victim.
The home secretary, Amber Rudd, has said it is too early to say who is responsible for the attack on Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, but fingers have been pointed at the Kremlin.
May, as home secretary, wrote to Litvinenko after the public inquiry into her husband’s death concluded in 2016. The inquiry found that Vladimir Putin and his top spy chief had “probably approved” her husband’s murder. In the letter, May vowed: “We will take every step to protect the UK and its people from such a crime ever being repeated.”
Litvinenko said: “We received very strong words after meeting in 2016 and I believed something would be done, but we can see nothing was done.”
The steps she wants the prime minister to take include bringing in a British equivalent of the Magnitsky act, US legislation that bans Russian individuals from entering the country and blocks their assets.
Labour tried earlier this month to introduce Magnitsky amendments to the sanctions and anti-money laundering bill in the House of Lords.
Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said the Tories had rejected the suggested clauses for “technical reasons” and urged the government to work with the opposition to implement them.
“What Magnitsky does is it identifies those individuals who are basically found guilty of human rights abuses. In particular it prevents them then operating or having bank accounts in our country and it effectively closes down all cooperation with them. Now, I think that could be remarkably effective,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/11/litvinenko-widow-warns-tories-over-russian-donations
Marina Litvinenko says party risks tainting its reputation in light of Sergei Skripal poisoning
The Conservative party is facing pressure to return Russian donations after the attempted murder of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil.
Marina Litvinenko, the widow of another former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, whose murder is believed to have been carried out under the direction of Russia’s FSB spy agency, said the Tories risked tainting their reputation if they held on to the cash.
“You need to be very accurate where this money came from before you accept this money,” she told Sky News. “If you identify it’s dirty money [you’re] just not allowed to accept it because I think reputation is very important. [The] reputation of the Conservative party in the UK and all around the world needs to be clear.”
The Sunday Times reported that Russian oligarchs and their associates had registered donations of £826,100 to the Tories since Theresa May entered No 10.
A spokesman said: “All donations to the Conservative party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them and comply fully with the law.”
Litvinenko accused May of failing to act to prevent a reoccurrence of the type of attack to which her husband fell victim.
The home secretary, Amber Rudd, has said it is too early to say who is responsible for the attack on Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, but fingers have been pointed at the Kremlin.
May, as home secretary, wrote to Litvinenko after the public inquiry into her husband’s death concluded in 2016. The inquiry found that Vladimir Putin and his top spy chief had “probably approved” her husband’s murder. In the letter, May vowed: “We will take every step to protect the UK and its people from such a crime ever being repeated.”
Litvinenko said: “We received very strong words after meeting in 2016 and I believed something would be done, but we can see nothing was done.”
The steps she wants the prime minister to take include bringing in a British equivalent of the Magnitsky act, US legislation that bans Russian individuals from entering the country and blocks their assets.
Labour tried earlier this month to introduce Magnitsky amendments to the sanctions and anti-money laundering bill in the House of Lords.
Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said the Tories had rejected the suggested clauses for “technical reasons” and urged the government to work with the opposition to implement them.
“What Magnitsky does is it identifies those individuals who are basically found guilty of human rights abuses. In particular it prevents them then operating or having bank accounts in our country and it effectively closes down all cooperation with them. Now, I think that could be remarkably effective,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/11/litvinenko-widow-warns-tories-over-russian-donations
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:35 pm
Jeremy Corbyn has taken the line used by the Kremlin when it refused to comply to the UK’s deadline for explaining Sergei Skripal’s poisioning. Corbyn was booed as told the Commons:
“How has she responded to the Russian government’s request for a sample of the agent used in the Sailsibury attack to run its own tests?”
The Russian Embassy in London tweeted:
The Russian Foreign Ministry said: “Without this, any statements by London are senseless.”
Not much of a surprise though, is it…
https://order-order.com/2018/03/14/corbyn-takes-putins-line/
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:36 pm
Conservatives, completely beholden to the Russians, the Saudis and the DUP.
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:36 pm
Up to their necks is dirty money.
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:36 pm
Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the Russia spy poisoning crisis is being used by Putin’s state media to counter the British government’s position. Corbyn’s statement to parliament yesterday is set against Theresa May’s in this write-up by TV Zvezda, a Russian army media outlet run by Putin’s Ministry of Defence:
“Earlier, British Prime Minister Teresa May said that Russia was allegedly involved in the poisoning of Skripal. However, she did not bring any more weighty arguments and evidence in favor of her position, but she traditionally promised new anti-Russian sanctions.
“The UK needs dialogue with Russia on all controversial issues. This statement was made by Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn during his speech in parliament. “We need to continue to seek a sound dialogue with Russia on all issues that our countries share, not just cutting off contacts and allowing tensions to grow,” Corbyn said.
“In addition, the politician called for an analysis of all the data obtained and to clarify the level of threat posed by the attack.”
The piece is headlined: “The leader of the British Labour Party calls for dialogue with Russia”…
Corbyn’s intervention over Tory donations gets big play in state news agency RIA Novosti’s sympathtic piece:
“The Conservatives greeted Corbyn with a disapproving rumble. The leader of the Labour Party had to stop several times and begin the phrases from the beginning. At the same time Corbyn rebuked the Conservatives for accepting donations from people who had made money dishonestly in Russia.”
In this article headlined “What happened to English politeness?” which appeared in Komsomolskaya Pravda, formerly an official newspaper of the Soviet Union, Emily Thornberry is singled out for special praise:
“In general, the negative plans are huge. Strengthen economic sanctions, encircle Russia even more closely with military bases, tighten the rules for entry into the UK for our citizens, freeze many of their accounts in British banks, expel Russian diplomats…
“I do not regret the place for the words of the famous politician from the Labour Party (main opposition) party, Emily Thornberry: “We need to strive for a healthy dialogue with Russia on issues that are shared by our countries, rather than severing contacts and further exacerbating tensions.”
Easy day in Russian state ‘newsrooms’, just lift Corbyn’s statement…
https://order-order.com/2018/03/13/russian-state-media-trumpets-corbyns-statement-spy-poisoning/
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:38 pm
[size=30][size=40]CORBYN ACCUSES TORIES OF BEING TOO CLOSE TO RUSSIA
[/size][/size]
Jeremy Corbyn used his response to Theresa May in the Commons this afternoon to attack the Tories for being too close to Russia.
He brought up reports of the Tories accepting donations from Russian citizens.
Jezza essentially made the argument that the Tories were too close the Kremlin.
A… bold… attempt to score political points.
Fair to say he badly misjudged that one.
https://order-order.com/2018/03/12/russia-todays-corbyn-accuses-tories-close-kremlin/
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:41 pm
Jeremy Corbyn has been branded an "apologist" for the Kremlin after he cast doubt over Russia’s culpability in spy poisoning and questioned the credibility of the intelligence services.
The Labour leader provoked outcry among MPs on Wednesday when he questioned the Prime Minister's assessment that there can now be “no alternative conclusion” other than the Kremlin’s culpability in the Salisbury attack.
Despite Mrs May's statement being informed by briefings by British intelligence, Mr Corbyn's spokesman claimed that information provided by security services had been "problematic".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/14/shame-jeremy-corbyn-provokes-outrage-among-mps-failing-condemn/
The Labour leader provoked outcry among MPs on Wednesday when he questioned the Prime Minister's assessment that there can now be “no alternative conclusion” other than the Kremlin’s culpability in the Salisbury attack.
Despite Mrs May's statement being informed by briefings by British intelligence, Mr Corbyn's spokesman claimed that information provided by security services had been "problematic".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/14/shame-jeremy-corbyn-provokes-outrage-among-mps-failing-condemn/
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:10 pm
Our country under nerve-agent attack and what does Jeremy Corbyn do? Plays party politics. His speech in the Commons yesterday earned shouts of ‘shame!’ and ‘disgusting!’ from Conservatives. One accused him of ‘Soviet ramblings’. Another said his words were ‘the most shameful moment’ he had witnessed in the House.
Labour MPs plainly wanted to disown him. You did not need to be a body-language expert to discern their horror. His words jarred and they knew it. So, I think, did Mr Corbyn after he sat down, for he remained pink in the face for the next 50 minutes and barely raised his eyes from his lap for the rest of the afternoon.
Mr Corbyn skated over the magnitude of the Salisbury outrage and settled for allegations that the Conservatives were financially dependent on Russian money. Oh, and the NHS was underfunded.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5492731/Even-Corbyns-MPs-disowned-mewling.html#ixzz59kRHEhpm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Labour MPs plainly wanted to disown him. You did not need to be a body-language expert to discern their horror. His words jarred and they knew it. So, I think, did Mr Corbyn after he sat down, for he remained pink in the face for the next 50 minutes and barely raised his eyes from his lap for the rest of the afternoon.
Mr Corbyn skated over the magnitude of the Salisbury outrage and settled for allegations that the Conservatives were financially dependent on Russian money. Oh, and the NHS was underfunded.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5492731/Even-Corbyns-MPs-disowned-mewling.html#ixzz59kRHEhpm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:24 pm
Jeremy Corbyn
1 hr ·
The attack in Salisbury was an appalling act of violence, which we condemn in the strongest terms.
Nerve agents are abominable if used in war. It is utterly reckless for them to be used in a civilian environment.
The Prime Minister said on Monday and again today that Russia was either directly responsible or it was culpable because it lost control of this nerve agent.
The Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence and our response must be both decisive and proportionate.
The attack in Britain has concerned our allies in the European Union, Nato and in the United Nations, and their words of solidarity have strengthened our position diplomatically.
We have a duty to speak out against the abuse of human rights by Putin’s Government and its support, both at home and abroad, and pay tribute to the many campaigners in Russia for human rights. And we must do more to address the dangers posed by the Russian state’s relationship with unofficial mafia-like groups and corrupt oligarchs.
We need to expose the flows of ill-gotten cash between the Russian state and billionaires who became stupendously rich by looting their country and subsequently using London to protect their wealth. We welcome the Prime Minister’s clear commitment today to support the Magnitsky amendments to sanction human rights abusers, as we have long been calling for.
Britain should build an international consensus to strengthen the chemical weapons convention, and ensure that such a horrific attack never happens again.
https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/
Emmanuel Macron's decision not to follow Theresa May's lead on Russia but instead be in line with Jeremy Corbyn in wanting to see evidence resembles France's view prior the Iraq War. France didn't join the War rather took the sensible approach along with Corbyn in opposing it
1 hr ·
The attack in Salisbury was an appalling act of violence, which we condemn in the strongest terms.
Nerve agents are abominable if used in war. It is utterly reckless for them to be used in a civilian environment.
The Prime Minister said on Monday and again today that Russia was either directly responsible or it was culpable because it lost control of this nerve agent.
The Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence and our response must be both decisive and proportionate.
The attack in Britain has concerned our allies in the European Union, Nato and in the United Nations, and their words of solidarity have strengthened our position diplomatically.
We have a duty to speak out against the abuse of human rights by Putin’s Government and its support, both at home and abroad, and pay tribute to the many campaigners in Russia for human rights. And we must do more to address the dangers posed by the Russian state’s relationship with unofficial mafia-like groups and corrupt oligarchs.
We need to expose the flows of ill-gotten cash between the Russian state and billionaires who became stupendously rich by looting their country and subsequently using London to protect their wealth. We welcome the Prime Minister’s clear commitment today to support the Magnitsky amendments to sanction human rights abusers, as we have long been calling for.
Britain should build an international consensus to strengthen the chemical weapons convention, and ensure that such a horrific attack never happens again.
https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/
Emmanuel Macron's decision not to follow Theresa May's lead on Russia but instead be in line with Jeremy Corbyn in wanting to see evidence resembles France's view prior the Iraq War. France didn't join the War rather took the sensible approach along with Corbyn in opposing it
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:25 pm
ha ha, so now he changes his tune after the media has ripped him apart.
Talk about backtracking
Talk about backtracking
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:33 pm
sassy wrote:Jeremy Corbyn
1 hr ·
The attack in Salisbury was an appalling act of violence, which we condemn in the strongest terms.
Nerve agents are abominable if used in war. It is utterly reckless for them to be used in a civilian environment.
The Prime Minister said on Monday and again today that Russia was either directly responsible or it was culpable because it lost control of this nerve agent.
The Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence and our response must be both decisive and proportionate.
The attack in Britain has concerned our allies in the European Union, Nato and in the United Nations, and their words of solidarity have strengthened our position diplomatically.
We have a duty to speak out against the abuse of human rights by Putin’s Government and its support, both at home and abroad, and pay tribute to the many campaigners in Russia for human rights. And we must do more to address the dangers posed by the Russian state’s relationship with unofficial mafia-like groups and corrupt oligarchs.
We need to expose the flows of ill-gotten cash between the Russian state and billionaires who became stupendously rich by looting their country and subsequently using London to protect their wealth. We welcome the Prime Minister’s clear commitment today to support the Magnitsky amendments to sanction human rights abusers, as we have long been calling for.
Britain should build an international consensus to strengthen the chemical weapons convention, and ensure that such a horrific attack never happens again.
https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/
Emmanuel Macron's decision not to follow Theresa May's lead on Russia but instead be in line with Jeremy Corbyn in wanting to see evidence resembles France's view prior the Iraq War. France didn't join the War rather took the sensible approach along with Corbyn in opposing it
Exactly what he said to MPs, but they were too busy braying to actually listen to sense.
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:35 pm
No its not the same thing
Talk about lying through your teeth
He posted this one hour ago, clearly as the press have gone to town on him.
Seriously your deity style worship of Corbyn is embarressing.
Talk about lying through your teeth
He posted this one hour ago, clearly as the press have gone to town on him.
Seriously your deity style worship of Corbyn is embarressing.
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:37 pm
[*]Jeremy Corbyn failed to condemn Russia for the poisoning in Commons today
[*]He also blamed government for cutting overseeing cuts to diplomatic service
[*]His spokesman says Russia may not be behind attack and MI5 can't be trusted
[*]PM lashed Corbyn as only person not in the consensus of condemning Moscow
[*]Was savaged by MPs for his weak response and branded a 'disgrace' to Labour
[*]Labour moderates backed May and launched pointed attacks at their own leader
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5499271/Corbyn-told-MPs-country-Russia.html#ixzz59kY6mWE8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
[*]He also blamed government for cutting overseeing cuts to diplomatic service
[*]His spokesman says Russia may not be behind attack and MI5 can't be trusted
[*]PM lashed Corbyn as only person not in the consensus of condemning Moscow
[*]Was savaged by MPs for his weak response and branded a 'disgrace' to Labour
[*]Labour moderates backed May and launched pointed attacks at their own leader
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5499271/Corbyn-told-MPs-country-Russia.html#ixzz59kY6mWE8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:56 pm
Jeremy Corbyn was accused of "appeasement" towards Russia as MPs - including his own backbenchers - voiced anger at the Labour leader's apparent reluctance to directly blame Moscow for the Salisbury nerve agent attack.
Mr Corbyn was heckled in the House of Commons on Wednesday as he responded to the Prime Minister's statement setting out a range of retaliatory measures the UK will take against Russia.
The Labour leader described the Salisbury attack as an "appalling act of violence", but urged the Government to ensure its response is "decisive, proportionate and based on clear evidence".
Mr Corbyn also called on Theresa May to maintain "robust dialogue" with Russia, despite her announcement that high-level bilateral contacts are to be suspended.
However, the Labour leader drew ire for failing to explicitly back the Prime Minister's assertion of Russian responsibility for the attack.
Repeating Moscow's demands, he also asked whether Mrs May had accepted the Russian government's request for them to be handed a sample of the nerve agent, in order for them to run their own tests.
Mr Corbyn was then barracked from the Conservative benches for using the exchanges - in which MPs largely supported Mrs May's response to what she branded an "unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the UK" - to suggest the UK's diplomatic capacity has been reduced as a result of cuts.
The PM said: "This is not a question of our diplomacy, of what diplomatic support we have around the world.
"This is the question of the culpability of the Russian state for an act on our soil."
Earlier this week, Mr Corbyn was accused of failing to offer unity and of party political point-scoring in the wake of the Salisbury attack, after he highlighted Russia-linked donations to the Conservative Party.
Mrs May went on to criticise Mr Corbyn's response to her statement, claiming he "could have taken the opportunity - as the UK Government has done - to condemn the culpability of the Russian state".
A number of high-profile Labour backbenchers then voiced their own disapproval with their party leader's comments.
"Can I assure the Prime Minister that most of us on these benches fully support the action she is taking," said former Labour cabinet minister Ben Bradshaw.
Labour's Yvette Cooper, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, was cheered by MPs on all sides of the chamber when she said Russia's actions should be met with "unequivocal condemnation".
The PM, in her response, thanked Ms Cooper for the tone of her comments and acknowledged they were "representative of many" on the Labour benches.
Submitted EDM 1071 with Labour colleagues making clear we unequivocally accept Russia’s culpability in the Salisbury attack and support UK govt action. Others will have chance to sign in coming days.
Further criticism came from the DUP's Sammy Wilson. He said: "We welcome the decisive action that has been taken by the Prime Minister today and it sits in contrast with the policy of appeasement that we have heard from the frontbench of the Labour Party."
In a briefing with journalists after Mrs May's statement, a Labour spokesman said: "Jeremy has condemned the attack in unequivocal terms."
But, the spokesman refused to say whether Mr Corbyn accepted Russia was at fault, adding: "The Government has access to information and intelligence on this matter which others don't.
"However, also there is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.
"So, I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons."
The spokesman went on to say "we have no problem with the expulsion of spies" after Mrs May announced she will be kicking out 23 Russian diplomats who have been identified as undeclared intelligence officers.
But the spokesman said such moves risk starting a "tit for tat" response and that measures to "hit them in the pocket" would be more effective.
Asked whether Russia should have been given more time to provide an explanation for the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Salisbury, the spokesman said: "Strict procedures are set out by the Office for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
"There are strict protocols that must be followed now, but we cannot accept any kind of outrage of this kind on UK soil."
Theresa May announces 23 Russian diplomats will be expelled
His comments prompted anger from Labour MPs, with Chuka Umunna saying they "do not represent the views of the majority of our voters, members or MPs".
Another Labour MP told Sky News there was "sheer fury" at Mr Corbyn's response.
They said: "He has been briefed on privy council terms. What more evidence does he require?"
There were also signs of uneasiness within Mr Corbyn's frontbench team.
Asked by Sky News whether they were happy with the Labour leader's response, one member of the shadow cabinet said: "I could not possibly comment."
https://news.sky.com/story/salisbury-attack-jeremy-corbyn-accused-of-appeasement-towards-russia-11289753
Mr Corbyn was heckled in the House of Commons on Wednesday as he responded to the Prime Minister's statement setting out a range of retaliatory measures the UK will take against Russia.
The Labour leader described the Salisbury attack as an "appalling act of violence", but urged the Government to ensure its response is "decisive, proportionate and based on clear evidence".
Mr Corbyn also called on Theresa May to maintain "robust dialogue" with Russia, despite her announcement that high-level bilateral contacts are to be suspended.
However, the Labour leader drew ire for failing to explicitly back the Prime Minister's assertion of Russian responsibility for the attack.
Repeating Moscow's demands, he also asked whether Mrs May had accepted the Russian government's request for them to be handed a sample of the nerve agent, in order for them to run their own tests.
Mr Corbyn was then barracked from the Conservative benches for using the exchanges - in which MPs largely supported Mrs May's response to what she branded an "unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the UK" - to suggest the UK's diplomatic capacity has been reduced as a result of cuts.
The PM said: "This is not a question of our diplomacy, of what diplomatic support we have around the world.
"This is the question of the culpability of the Russian state for an act on our soil."
Earlier this week, Mr Corbyn was accused of failing to offer unity and of party political point-scoring in the wake of the Salisbury attack, after he highlighted Russia-linked donations to the Conservative Party.
Mrs May went on to criticise Mr Corbyn's response to her statement, claiming he "could have taken the opportunity - as the UK Government has done - to condemn the culpability of the Russian state".
A number of high-profile Labour backbenchers then voiced their own disapproval with their party leader's comments.
"Can I assure the Prime Minister that most of us on these benches fully support the action she is taking," said former Labour cabinet minister Ben Bradshaw.
Labour's Yvette Cooper, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, was cheered by MPs on all sides of the chamber when she said Russia's actions should be met with "unequivocal condemnation".
The PM, in her response, thanked Ms Cooper for the tone of her comments and acknowledged they were "representative of many" on the Labour benches.
Submitted EDM 1071 with Labour colleagues making clear we unequivocally accept Russia’s culpability in the Salisbury attack and support UK govt action. Others will have chance to sign in coming days.
Further criticism came from the DUP's Sammy Wilson. He said: "We welcome the decisive action that has been taken by the Prime Minister today and it sits in contrast with the policy of appeasement that we have heard from the frontbench of the Labour Party."
In a briefing with journalists after Mrs May's statement, a Labour spokesman said: "Jeremy has condemned the attack in unequivocal terms."
But, the spokesman refused to say whether Mr Corbyn accepted Russia was at fault, adding: "The Government has access to information and intelligence on this matter which others don't.
"However, also there is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.
"So, I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons."
The spokesman went on to say "we have no problem with the expulsion of spies" after Mrs May announced she will be kicking out 23 Russian diplomats who have been identified as undeclared intelligence officers.
But the spokesman said such moves risk starting a "tit for tat" response and that measures to "hit them in the pocket" would be more effective.
Asked whether Russia should have been given more time to provide an explanation for the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Salisbury, the spokesman said: "Strict procedures are set out by the Office for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
"There are strict protocols that must be followed now, but we cannot accept any kind of outrage of this kind on UK soil."
Theresa May announces 23 Russian diplomats will be expelled
His comments prompted anger from Labour MPs, with Chuka Umunna saying they "do not represent the views of the majority of our voters, members or MPs".
Another Labour MP told Sky News there was "sheer fury" at Mr Corbyn's response.
They said: "He has been briefed on privy council terms. What more evidence does he require?"
There were also signs of uneasiness within Mr Corbyn's frontbench team.
Asked by Sky News whether they were happy with the Labour leader's response, one member of the shadow cabinet said: "I could not possibly comment."
https://news.sky.com/story/salisbury-attack-jeremy-corbyn-accused-of-appeasement-towards-russia-11289753
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Andy Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:01 pm
I know.
Lrt us just nuke Moscow.
That will please the far right wingers like Didge.
Lrt us just nuke Moscow.
That will please the far right wingers like Didge.
Andy- Poet Laureate & Traveling Bard of NewsFix
- Posts : 6421
Join date : 2013-12-14
Age : 67
Location : Winning the fight to drain the swamp of far right extremists.
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:04 pm
Angry Andy wrote:I know.
Lrt us just nuke Moscow.
That will please the far right wingers like Didge.
Oh dear, another apologist failing to condemn Corbyn and then making unfounded claims on me
Quelle surprise
So another Neville Chamberlain wannabe in the making we see with you Andy.
Nobody wants a nuke war, but neith will the Uk back down to intimdation from Russia.
The UK has already the backing of most major western powers
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:05 pm
BUT...and this should NOT be ignored......
there is a principle in british Law that requires "disclosure" (of evidence) from and to all and any parties to a criminal case.
in this case a sample of the agent allegedly used should indeed be supplied to the russians. to do so is, after all only, open handed dealing. Moreover I do understand that the international law on these matters does require the accused to be allowed access to the investigation fully and openly.
there is a principle in british Law that requires "disclosure" (of evidence) from and to all and any parties to a criminal case.
in this case a sample of the agent allegedly used should indeed be supplied to the russians. to do so is, after all only, open handed dealing. Moreover I do understand that the international law on these matters does require the accused to be allowed access to the investigation fully and openly.
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:07 pm
Lord Foul wrote:BUT...and this should NOT be ignored......
there is a principle in british Law that requires "disclosure" (of evidence) from and to all and any parties to a criminal case.
in this case a sample of the agent allegedly used should indeed be supplied to the russians. to do so is, after all only, open handed dealing. Moreover I do understand that the international law on these matters does require the accused to be allowed access to the investigation fully and openly.
What do you think the Russians will do with the sample?
To then claim its not theirs?
How about the sample sent to independent teams at the UN instead?
Or the ICC
Guest- Guest
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:21 pm
Mr Chair, Director General, when I spoke to this Council yesterday I asked your permission to address this Council Session again to update on developments concerning the use of chemical weapons in Salisbury, and the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal with a ‘Novichok’: a military-grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability, combined with Russia’s record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including against former intelligence officers who they regard as legitimate targets – the UK government concluded that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and despicable act.
We have engaged bilaterally with the Russian Federation. On 12 March my Foreign Secretary summoned the Russian Ambassador to London and sought explanations from his government within 24 hours. As my Prime Minister has said, we offered the Russian government the opportunity to provide an explanation. We explained to Russia that if it had somehow lost control of its stock, it needed to immediately provide full disclosure of the programme, and account for this loss. But their response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events.
Russia has provided no explanation; and no meaningful response.
No explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom; no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme contravening its obligations under the chemical weapons convention.
Instead they have treated the first ever aggressive use of a nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.
As my Prime Minister said in the United Kingdom’s Parliament this afternoon, there can be no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian State was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter – and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.
It also represents a violation of the fundamental prohibition on the use of chemical weapons contained in Article 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Russia’s attempt to hide behind a false interpretation of Articles in the Chemical Weapons Convention should fool no one. We asked for clarification on a matter of urgent national security for the United Kingdom, concerning a serious violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Russia has provided none. Instead of engaging on the substantive concern, Russia has sought to mire us and this Executive Council in procedural argument. Article 9 does not oblige states which are the victims of chemical weapons to refrain from seeking rapid response to their immediate and urgent concerns. Not only that, as you have all heard in this room yesterday, the Russians have stated that they regard the premise of our question – the findings of our investigation to date – as based on lies.
We have also been scrupulous in briefing the OPCW Technical Secretariat. On 8 March we notified the Technical Secretariat of the incident. My Foreign Secretary called the Director General on 12 March to update him on the facts of the case. I have briefed the Director General, most recently today, and my Prime Minister is writing to him with a further update. We have welcomed the offers of assistance from the Director General and the Technical Secretariat. And, as my Prime Minister said in the UK Parliament earlier today, we are working with the police to enable the OPCW to independently verify our analysis. This horrendous incident is now the subject of a UK criminal investigation, and we have legal obligations as a result to ensure that we share our information only in accordance with the law.
Russia will complain that we have not shared any samples. There are no provisions in the Convention that require the UK to share its samples collected as part of a criminal investigation with Russia in this type of scenario.
Mr Chair, British citizens have been endangered. It was an indiscriminate, brazen and reckless act against the United Kingdom, which put the lives of British citizens at risk. There is a real urgency to resolve this situation.
Given what Russia said in this Council yesterday – that our case was founded on lies and dirty information – it is clear that Russia does not plan to address our substantive concerns.
Mr Chair, nobody can doubt our commitment to the CWC, particularly at a time when there has been a use of chemical weapons on our territory against our citizens. We will continue to work with the Technical Secretariat, and will keep this Council informed of developments.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/organisation-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-87th-executive-council-session-14-march-update-on-the-use-of-nerve-agent-in-salisbury-uk
Hope that helps answer some questions for you Victor
We have engaged bilaterally with the Russian Federation. On 12 March my Foreign Secretary summoned the Russian Ambassador to London and sought explanations from his government within 24 hours. As my Prime Minister has said, we offered the Russian government the opportunity to provide an explanation. We explained to Russia that if it had somehow lost control of its stock, it needed to immediately provide full disclosure of the programme, and account for this loss. But their response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events.
Russia has provided no explanation; and no meaningful response.
No explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom; no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme contravening its obligations under the chemical weapons convention.
Instead they have treated the first ever aggressive use of a nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.
As my Prime Minister said in the United Kingdom’s Parliament this afternoon, there can be no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian State was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter – and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.
It also represents a violation of the fundamental prohibition on the use of chemical weapons contained in Article 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Russia’s attempt to hide behind a false interpretation of Articles in the Chemical Weapons Convention should fool no one. We asked for clarification on a matter of urgent national security for the United Kingdom, concerning a serious violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Russia has provided none. Instead of engaging on the substantive concern, Russia has sought to mire us and this Executive Council in procedural argument. Article 9 does not oblige states which are the victims of chemical weapons to refrain from seeking rapid response to their immediate and urgent concerns. Not only that, as you have all heard in this room yesterday, the Russians have stated that they regard the premise of our question – the findings of our investigation to date – as based on lies.
We have also been scrupulous in briefing the OPCW Technical Secretariat. On 8 March we notified the Technical Secretariat of the incident. My Foreign Secretary called the Director General on 12 March to update him on the facts of the case. I have briefed the Director General, most recently today, and my Prime Minister is writing to him with a further update. We have welcomed the offers of assistance from the Director General and the Technical Secretariat. And, as my Prime Minister said in the UK Parliament earlier today, we are working with the police to enable the OPCW to independently verify our analysis. This horrendous incident is now the subject of a UK criminal investigation, and we have legal obligations as a result to ensure that we share our information only in accordance with the law.
Russia will complain that we have not shared any samples. There are no provisions in the Convention that require the UK to share its samples collected as part of a criminal investigation with Russia in this type of scenario.
Mr Chair, British citizens have been endangered. It was an indiscriminate, brazen and reckless act against the United Kingdom, which put the lives of British citizens at risk. There is a real urgency to resolve this situation.
Given what Russia said in this Council yesterday – that our case was founded on lies and dirty information – it is clear that Russia does not plan to address our substantive concerns.
Mr Chair, nobody can doubt our commitment to the CWC, particularly at a time when there has been a use of chemical weapons on our territory against our citizens. We will continue to work with the Technical Secretariat, and will keep this Council informed of developments.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/organisation-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-87th-executive-council-session-14-march-update-on-the-use-of-nerve-agent-in-salisbury-uk
Hope that helps answer some questions for you Victor
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:28 pm
Common sense from someone, at last...!
Green from me LF...!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:30 pm
France wants proof before responding on Britain poisoning affair
PARIS (Reuters) - France on Wednesday said it wanted firm proof of Russian involvement in the nerve-toxin poisoning of a Russian double agent in Britain before it took any action in solidarity with the British government.
In contrast to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon who assured British Prime Minister Theresa May they were taking her government’s views on possible Russian involvement extremely seriously, President Emmanuel Macron and other French officials have declined to mention Russia.
After France initialed condemned the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter and expressed solidarity with Britain on Tuesday, French government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux on Wednesday said it was too early for Paris to decide whether action should be taken.
“We don’t do fantasy politics. Once the elements are proven, then the time will come for decisions to be made,” Griveaux told a news conference shortly after May said she was expelling Russian diplomats and suspending bilateral talks.
While he called the attack a “very serious act” on a strategic ally, Griveaux said France was waiting for “definitive conclusions” and evidence that the “facts were completely true” before taking a position.
Britain’s ambassador to France, Ed Llewellyn, tweeted on Tuesday that the first neuro toxin attack on European soil since 1945 required a “strong and coordinated response from our allies.”
When asked whether Paris would be ready to take counter-measures on Russia given London’s claims, foreign ministry spokeswoman Agnes Von der Muhll said Paris was in close contact with Britain on the issue.
Without answering directly, she added that Paris fully-supported a NATO statement calling on Russia to give Britain “complete disclosure” of the Soviet-era nerve agent used in the attack.
France’s muted reaction is in contrast with its closest allies, but is in line with Macron’s efforts since coming into office to build a new relationship with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
Rather than directly confronting Putin through threats and megaphone diplomacy, he has emphasized private dialogue, while pushing for a restoration of business and cultural ties despite existing European Union sanctions on Moscow.
Diplomats say Macron believes ostracizing Moscow will not yield results given its importance on the world stage and role in world crises. Despite obvious differences, he believes it is vital to keep a working relationship going with Russia.
Standing alongside Putin last May at the Chateau de Versailles, Macron heralded the start to a new page in relations after tensions under the previous administration. He said at the time that he wouldn’t let differences over Syria, Ukraine and human rights strain their relationship.
Nearly a year on, there is little evidence to suggest he has gained anything tangible from the alternative approach in terms of foreign policy successes. However, he is due to be the guest of honor at an investor forum in Saint Petersburg at the end of May where a large French business delegation will also be present.
“France has a policy on Russia that it’s going to stick to. There’s no reason for this to knock that off-target,” a French official said. “You’ve got to remember there are pretty close ties between France and Russia, whether around literature, culture and business, and they are important.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics-maas/new-german-foreign-minister-criticizes-russian-response-to-chemical-attack-idUSKCN1GQ2O3
PARIS (Reuters) - France on Wednesday said it wanted firm proof of Russian involvement in the nerve-toxin poisoning of a Russian double agent in Britain before it took any action in solidarity with the British government.
In contrast to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon who assured British Prime Minister Theresa May they were taking her government’s views on possible Russian involvement extremely seriously, President Emmanuel Macron and other French officials have declined to mention Russia.
After France initialed condemned the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter and expressed solidarity with Britain on Tuesday, French government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux on Wednesday said it was too early for Paris to decide whether action should be taken.
“We don’t do fantasy politics. Once the elements are proven, then the time will come for decisions to be made,” Griveaux told a news conference shortly after May said she was expelling Russian diplomats and suspending bilateral talks.
While he called the attack a “very serious act” on a strategic ally, Griveaux said France was waiting for “definitive conclusions” and evidence that the “facts were completely true” before taking a position.
Britain’s ambassador to France, Ed Llewellyn, tweeted on Tuesday that the first neuro toxin attack on European soil since 1945 required a “strong and coordinated response from our allies.”
When asked whether Paris would be ready to take counter-measures on Russia given London’s claims, foreign ministry spokeswoman Agnes Von der Muhll said Paris was in close contact with Britain on the issue.
Without answering directly, she added that Paris fully-supported a NATO statement calling on Russia to give Britain “complete disclosure” of the Soviet-era nerve agent used in the attack.
France’s muted reaction is in contrast with its closest allies, but is in line with Macron’s efforts since coming into office to build a new relationship with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
Rather than directly confronting Putin through threats and megaphone diplomacy, he has emphasized private dialogue, while pushing for a restoration of business and cultural ties despite existing European Union sanctions on Moscow.
Diplomats say Macron believes ostracizing Moscow will not yield results given its importance on the world stage and role in world crises. Despite obvious differences, he believes it is vital to keep a working relationship going with Russia.
Standing alongside Putin last May at the Chateau de Versailles, Macron heralded the start to a new page in relations after tensions under the previous administration. He said at the time that he wouldn’t let differences over Syria, Ukraine and human rights strain their relationship.
Nearly a year on, there is little evidence to suggest he has gained anything tangible from the alternative approach in terms of foreign policy successes. However, he is due to be the guest of honor at an investor forum in Saint Petersburg at the end of May where a large French business delegation will also be present.
“France has a policy on Russia that it’s going to stick to. There’s no reason for this to knock that off-target,” a French official said. “You’ve got to remember there are pretty close ties between France and Russia, whether around literature, culture and business, and they are important.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics-maas/new-german-foreign-minister-criticizes-russian-response-to-chemical-attack-idUSKCN1GQ2O3
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:33 pm
Lord Foul wrote:BUT...and this should NOT be ignored......
there is a principle in british Law that requires "disclosure" (of evidence) from and to all and any parties to a criminal case.
in this case a sample of the agent allegedly used should indeed be supplied to the russians. to do so is, after all only, open handed dealing. Moreover I do understand that the international law on these matters does require the accused to be allowed access to the investigation fully and openly.
Absolutely right. Stirring up a storm before rather than doing the things that are required by Internation Law, so that you can get the baying hounds on side, is not being statesmanlike. Before thoughtful and finding out the facts, completing what is required under the law, and then making a decision, is what a real statesman does.
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:33 pm
Didge wrote:Mr Chair, Director General, when I spoke to this Council yesterday I asked your permission to address this Council Session again to update on developments concerning the use of chemical weapons in Salisbury, and the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal with a ‘Novichok’: a military-grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability, combined with Russia’s record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including against former intelligence officers who they regard as legitimate targets – the UK government concluded that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and despicable act.
We have engaged bilaterally with the Russian Federation. On 12 March my Foreign Secretary summoned the Russian Ambassador to London and sought explanations from his government within 24 hours. As my Prime Minister has said, we offered the Russian government the opportunity to provide an explanation. We explained to Russia that if it had somehow lost control of its stock, it needed to immediately provide full disclosure of the programme, and account for this loss. But their response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events.
Russia has provided no explanation; and no meaningful response.
No explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom; no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme contravening its obligations under the chemical weapons convention.
Instead they have treated the first ever aggressive use of a nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.
As my Prime Minister said in the United Kingdom’s Parliament this afternoon, there can be no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian State was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter – and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.
It also represents a violation of the fundamental prohibition on the use of chemical weapons contained in Article 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Russia’s attempt to hide behind a false interpretation of Articles in the Chemical Weapons Convention should fool no one. We asked for clarification on a matter of urgent national security for the United Kingdom, concerning a serious violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Russia has provided none. Instead of engaging on the substantive concern, Russia has sought to mire us and this Executive Council in procedural argument. Article 9 does not oblige states which are the victims of chemical weapons to refrain from seeking rapid response to their immediate and urgent concerns. Not only that, as you have all heard in this room yesterday, the Russians have stated that they regard the premise of our question – the findings of our investigation to date – as based on lies.
We have also been scrupulous in briefing the OPCW Technical Secretariat. On 8 March we notified the Technical Secretariat of the incident. My Foreign Secretary called the Director General on 12 March to update him on the facts of the case. I have briefed the Director General, most recently today, and my Prime Minister is writing to him with a further update. We have welcomed the offers of assistance from the Director General and the Technical Secretariat. And, as my Prime Minister said in the UK Parliament earlier today, we are working with the police to enable the OPCW to independently verify our analysis. This horrendous incident is now the subject of a UK criminal investigation, and we have legal obligations as a result to ensure that we share our information only in accordance with the law.
Russia will complain that we have not shared any samples. There are no provisions in the Convention that require the UK to share its samples collected as part of a criminal investigation with Russia in this type of scenario.
Mr Chair, British citizens have been endangered. It was an indiscriminate, brazen and reckless act against the United Kingdom, which put the lives of British citizens at risk. There is a real urgency to resolve this situation.
Given what Russia said in this Council yesterday – that our case was founded on lies and dirty information – it is clear that Russia does not plan to address our substantive concerns.
Mr Chair, nobody can doubt our commitment to the CWC, particularly at a time when there has been a use of chemical weapons on our territory against our citizens. We will continue to work with the Technical Secretariat, and will keep this Council informed of developments.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/organisation-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-87th-executive-council-session-14-march-update-on-the-use-of-nerve-agent-in-salisbury-uk
Hope that helps answer some questions for you Victor
I have lighted the important part again for the slow witted
And a link to them
https://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/technical-secretariat/
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Andy Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:41 pm
All we, May and Corbyn have is empirical evidence that the nerve agent originated in Russia.
It is foolish to be too aggressive with only a probablilty of proof.
For international law , you need proof absolute.
Beyond reasonable doubt.
Now May may have this proof from MI6, but until she shares it, it is only probable.
This has all the makings of another Blair WMD decision.
That was a fuck up of the highest order and cost the lives of hundreds of British and US troops.
Corbyn is right to be wary.
Now is not the time to be gung ho. They can hurt us 1000 times more than we can hurt them.
And the rest of Europe may leavs us to our own fate, after all a 3.5% majority of those who voted, wanted no part in Europe or it's armed support.
We are on our own, especially as Putin owns Trump.
It is foolish to be too aggressive with only a probablilty of proof.
For international law , you need proof absolute.
Beyond reasonable doubt.
Now May may have this proof from MI6, but until she shares it, it is only probable.
This has all the makings of another Blair WMD decision.
That was a fuck up of the highest order and cost the lives of hundreds of British and US troops.
Corbyn is right to be wary.
Now is not the time to be gung ho. They can hurt us 1000 times more than we can hurt them.
And the rest of Europe may leavs us to our own fate, after all a 3.5% majority of those who voted, wanted no part in Europe or it's armed support.
We are on our own, especially as Putin owns Trump.
Last edited by Angry Andy on Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Andy- Poet Laureate & Traveling Bard of NewsFix
- Posts : 6421
Join date : 2013-12-14
Age : 67
Location : Winning the fight to drain the swamp of far right extremists.
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:44 pm
Angry Andy wrote:All we, May and Corbyn have is empirical evidence tnat the nerve agent originated in Russia.
It is foolish to be too aggressive with only a probablilty of proof.
For international law , you need proof absolute.
Beyond reasonable doubt.
Now May have this proof from MI6, but until she shares it, it is only probable.
This has all the makings of another Blair WMD decision.
That was a fuck up of the highest ordef and cost the lives of hundreds of British and US troops.
Corbyn is right to be wary.
She is sharing this with the OPCW to independently varify the analysis
Can you not read?
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Andy Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:46 pm
And what have they told you?
Either by phone call, personal email or Twatter?
Either by phone call, personal email or Twatter?
Andy- Poet Laureate & Traveling Bard of NewsFix
- Posts : 6421
Join date : 2013-12-14
Age : 67
Location : Winning the fight to drain the swamp of far right extremists.
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:49 pm
Angry Andy wrote:And what have they told you?
Either by phone call, personal email or Trwatter?
That you are an apologist, not trusting the Governement on this, based on a Labour Goverment lying before.
The question you do not ask, is why would the Goverment look to get itself involved in a hostile situation with Russia.
So why would it lie?
I will await the outcome of the independent testing, but clearly sassy, Corbyn and co were craping on about sending this to Russia. That is just plain dumb. Its Corbyn pandering to what the Russians have been saying. When its clear they would simple deny the sample.
Did you not think of that?
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:57 pm
It seems to me that no harm can be done by allowing the russians a sample of what they are accused of using. especially since this is soviet era stuff. THEY may actually be the only ones to be able to say definatively where it came from, since doubless various batches will have slight but significant ifferences. Unlike simple inorganic compounds. complex organic molecules do NOT always have the same analysis from batch to batch, especially when isomeric compounds in which the ratio of isomers can be quite variable are concerned. In drug manufacture much expense is put into refining the wanted compound to remove the unwanted ones, so the result is generally quite uniform....I doubt the same care is taken with nerve agents in which, lets face it, absolute purity is hardly a concern. It MAY be that this was something "left over" in some ex soviet satellite state and forgotten about....Jumping straight down the throat of putin is undersatndable, but actually less than necessary....It would have been far more statesman like to have refrained for some time untill the FULL facts are actually known and proven (as far as they may be)...a case built purely on suspicion, however good that suspicion, is a very weak case indeed.....likely or even VERY likely is NOT definitely guilty. This has to be treated like a criminal case (beyond shadow of doubt) NOT as a civil case (balance of probabilities)
what is also of passing concern is the willingness to pass over so easily a major cornerstone of our internal law, in favour of (for obvious reasons) far more vague international law. however if we are to claim justice we should be seen to do so with "clean hands" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands)
submitting a sample to BOTH the UN AND the russians is the way to do just that.
what is also of passing concern is the willingness to pass over so easily a major cornerstone of our internal law, in favour of (for obvious reasons) far more vague international law. however if we are to claim justice we should be seen to do so with "clean hands" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands)
submitting a sample to BOTH the UN AND the russians is the way to do just that.
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:02 pm
You do realise Victor they have denied all knowledge in the past of this nerve agent being created there?
They are unwilling to help in this investigation and release information.
So what do you think will happen if the UK sends a sample?
Sorry but the claims you make are baseless.
You doubt the same care is taken with nerve agents?
Based on what?
Your opinion?
There is an organisation, which idepently can varify and refute the British findings
What is wrong with that?
They are unwilling to help in this investigation and release information.
So what do you think will happen if the UK sends a sample?
Sorry but the claims you make are baseless.
You doubt the same care is taken with nerve agents?
Based on what?
Your opinion?
There is an organisation, which idepently can varify and refute the British findings
What is wrong with that?
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:05 pm
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is an intergovernmental organisation and the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force on 29 April 1997. The OPCW, with its 192 Member States has its seat in The Hague (Netherlands) and oversees the global endeavour to permanently and verifiably eliminate chemical weapons.
The organisation promotes and verifies the adherence to the Chemical Weapons Convention which prohibits the use of chemical weapons and requires their destruction. The verification consists both of evaluation of declarations by member states and on-site inspections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_the_Prohibition_of_Chemical_Weapons
The organisation promotes and verifies the adherence to the Chemical Weapons Convention which prohibits the use of chemical weapons and requires their destruction. The verification consists both of evaluation of declarations by member states and on-site inspections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_the_Prohibition_of_Chemical_Weapons
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:07 pm
Mr Chair, Director General,
The statement that I deliver this morning is markedly different from our usual statements to the Executive Council. I did not expect to have to brief this Council on the first offensive use of a nerve agent of any sort on European territory since World War II.
On 8 March, the United Kingdom Delegation informed the OPCW Technical Secretariat that 2 people, Sergey and Yulia Skripal, had been taken seriously ill on 4 March in the city of Salisbury following exposure to a nerve agent. The police were treating it as attempted murder, and were investigating the case thoroughly. A UK police officer, one of the first responders, also fell seriously ill. We committed to update the Technical Secretariat and the OPCW Executive Council when more information became available.
My Prime Minister made a statement yesterday evening to the United Kingdom’s Parliament. She said our analysis had confirmed that the substance used was a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, part of a group of agents known as ‘Novichok’ agents. My Prime Minister set out the United Kingdom’s conclusion that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for this attack.
This conclusion is based on a number of strands of evidence, including:
the positive identification of the chemical agent by experts at the United Kingdom’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down
our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so
Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; and
our assessment that Russia views at least some defectors as legitimate targets for assassination
We can see only 2 plausible explanations for the use of such a chemical nerve agent: it was either a direct act by the Russian state against the United Kingdom, or a case where the Russian government had lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.
On 12 March, my Foreign Secretary summoned Russia’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and asked him to explain how this Russian-produced nerve agent could have been deployed in Salisbury against Mr Skripal and his daughter. He asked Russia to provide immediate, full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the OPCW. And he asked for Russia to respond within 24 hours – in other words, by the end of today.
My Foreign Secretary spoke to the Director General yesterday to update him on the situation. He also thanked the Director General and the OPCW Technical Secretariat for their offer of technical assistance.
Mr Chair, States Parties to the Convention take on a duty to uphold and enforce its fundamental tenets. We commit not to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons. We commit not to transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone. We commit never to use chemical weapons. We commit not to engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons. And we commit not to assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in prohibited activity.
The stark conclusion is that it is highly likely that Russia, a fellow State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention and fellow member of this Executive Council is implicated in chemical weapons use, whether by failure to control its own materials or by design. And in whichever scenario, Russia has failed, for many years, to declare chemical weapons development programmes dating from the 1970s.
This attempted murder, using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British city, was not just a crime against the Skripals. It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, which put the lives of innocent civilians at risk. This incident has demanded a large scale response from our first responders in the police and medical services, with substantial assistance from our military specialists. The United Kingdom is fortunate enough to have extensive, dedicated and robust capabilities to respond to such an event. Not every country has this. That is why building capacity for effective national implementation of the Convention is so important. We have supported and invested in technical assistance programmes, including through the OPCW, to build capabilities globally to respond to cases of alleged or actual chemical weapons use.
All of us in this room should be aware: if the norm against chemical weapons use continues to be eroded, if we don’t stand up to enforce the fundamental tenets of the Convention, what has happened in the United Kingdom could happen in any one of our countries. Indeed, in the last 13 months alone, chemical weapons attacks have taken place in Syria, in Iraq, in Malaysia and now in the United Kingdom.
Those who have used chemical weapons cannot be immune from the consequences of their actions. We must all do all that we can to bring perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks to justice, whoever they are, and wherever they may be. The United Kingdom was proud to join the International Partnership Against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons. We encourage all States Parties to join it to demonstrate their own commitment to end use of chemical weapons once and for all, to stand together against chemical weapons use, and to take action to hold perpetrators accountable.
Mr Chair, we will keep the Technical Secretariat and this Council informed of developments as soon as our legal processes allow. With your permission, Mr Chair, I will return to this issue later in this Council Session if there are any further updates.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/organisation-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-87th-executive-council-session-statement-on-the-salisbury-incident
The statement that I deliver this morning is markedly different from our usual statements to the Executive Council. I did not expect to have to brief this Council on the first offensive use of a nerve agent of any sort on European territory since World War II.
On 8 March, the United Kingdom Delegation informed the OPCW Technical Secretariat that 2 people, Sergey and Yulia Skripal, had been taken seriously ill on 4 March in the city of Salisbury following exposure to a nerve agent. The police were treating it as attempted murder, and were investigating the case thoroughly. A UK police officer, one of the first responders, also fell seriously ill. We committed to update the Technical Secretariat and the OPCW Executive Council when more information became available.
My Prime Minister made a statement yesterday evening to the United Kingdom’s Parliament. She said our analysis had confirmed that the substance used was a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, part of a group of agents known as ‘Novichok’ agents. My Prime Minister set out the United Kingdom’s conclusion that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for this attack.
This conclusion is based on a number of strands of evidence, including:
the positive identification of the chemical agent by experts at the United Kingdom’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down
our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so
Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; and
our assessment that Russia views at least some defectors as legitimate targets for assassination
We can see only 2 plausible explanations for the use of such a chemical nerve agent: it was either a direct act by the Russian state against the United Kingdom, or a case where the Russian government had lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.
On 12 March, my Foreign Secretary summoned Russia’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and asked him to explain how this Russian-produced nerve agent could have been deployed in Salisbury against Mr Skripal and his daughter. He asked Russia to provide immediate, full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the OPCW. And he asked for Russia to respond within 24 hours – in other words, by the end of today.
My Foreign Secretary spoke to the Director General yesterday to update him on the situation. He also thanked the Director General and the OPCW Technical Secretariat for their offer of technical assistance.
Mr Chair, States Parties to the Convention take on a duty to uphold and enforce its fundamental tenets. We commit not to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons. We commit not to transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone. We commit never to use chemical weapons. We commit not to engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons. And we commit not to assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in prohibited activity.
The stark conclusion is that it is highly likely that Russia, a fellow State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention and fellow member of this Executive Council is implicated in chemical weapons use, whether by failure to control its own materials or by design. And in whichever scenario, Russia has failed, for many years, to declare chemical weapons development programmes dating from the 1970s.
This attempted murder, using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British city, was not just a crime against the Skripals. It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, which put the lives of innocent civilians at risk. This incident has demanded a large scale response from our first responders in the police and medical services, with substantial assistance from our military specialists. The United Kingdom is fortunate enough to have extensive, dedicated and robust capabilities to respond to such an event. Not every country has this. That is why building capacity for effective national implementation of the Convention is so important. We have supported and invested in technical assistance programmes, including through the OPCW, to build capabilities globally to respond to cases of alleged or actual chemical weapons use.
All of us in this room should be aware: if the norm against chemical weapons use continues to be eroded, if we don’t stand up to enforce the fundamental tenets of the Convention, what has happened in the United Kingdom could happen in any one of our countries. Indeed, in the last 13 months alone, chemical weapons attacks have taken place in Syria, in Iraq, in Malaysia and now in the United Kingdom.
Those who have used chemical weapons cannot be immune from the consequences of their actions. We must all do all that we can to bring perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks to justice, whoever they are, and wherever they may be. The United Kingdom was proud to join the International Partnership Against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons. We encourage all States Parties to join it to demonstrate their own commitment to end use of chemical weapons once and for all, to stand together against chemical weapons use, and to take action to hold perpetrators accountable.
Mr Chair, we will keep the Technical Secretariat and this Council informed of developments as soon as our legal processes allow. With your permission, Mr Chair, I will return to this issue later in this Council Session if there are any further updates.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/organisation-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-87th-executive-council-session-statement-on-the-salisbury-incident
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:09 pm
Didge wrote:You do realise Victor they have denied all knowledge in the past of this nerve agent being created there?
They are unwilling to help in this investigation and release information.
So what do you think will happen if the UK sends a sample?
Sorry but the claims you make are baseless.
You doubt the same care is taken with nerve agents?
Based on what?
Your opinion?
Efficiency and cost...it would be neither necessary or desirable to refine a nerve agent to any great degree
There is an organisation, which idepently can varify and refute the British findings
What is wrong with that?
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:09 pm
Lord Foul wrote:Didge wrote:You do realise Victor they have denied all knowledge in the past of this nerve agent being created there?
They are unwilling to help in this investigation and release information.
So what do you think will happen if the UK sends a sample?
Sorry but the claims you make are baseless.
You doubt the same care is taken with nerve agents?
Based on what?
Your opinion?
Efficiency and cost...it would be neither necessary or desirable to refine a nerve agent to any great degree
There is an organisation, which idepently can varify and refute the British findings
What is wrong with that?
So nothing more than your opinion
baseless
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:17 pm
just like most of your posts...
but opinion based on sound reasoning
1 why add millions to an already expensive program when its not necessary
2 because the damn stuff is so toxic that the presence of even 10% impurity would make no difference to its effectiveness
3 why add yet another processing/handling stage with all its attendand dangers
4 why create for yourself the problem of dealing with a stockpile of highly dangerous, malignant waste when you can just dump that on your enemy too?
finally BINARY agents cannot, by definition and use be purified....since they are mixed just before use...literally whatever the mix makes is what gets delivered
but opinion based on sound reasoning
1 why add millions to an already expensive program when its not necessary
2 because the damn stuff is so toxic that the presence of even 10% impurity would make no difference to its effectiveness
3 why add yet another processing/handling stage with all its attendand dangers
4 why create for yourself the problem of dealing with a stockpile of highly dangerous, malignant waste when you can just dump that on your enemy too?
finally BINARY agents cannot, by definition and use be purified....since they are mixed just before use...literally whatever the mix makes is what gets delivered
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:17 pm
Sassy and LF are right...!
Also... regarding 'Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey'... conveniently 'first on the scene to assist the Skipals'... reportedly giving CPR to the daughter... but then reported as being one of the first to be at the Skipal house too... and after then was reportedly becoming extremely sick from this 'nerve agent'... and subsequently hospitalised in intensive care and in a coma... only to then be reported as 'sitting up and talking' only a couple of days later...!
All seems a bit strange to me...!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:20 pm
personally...I have one eye on the russians
one eye on the various enemies russia has
one eye on the russian mafia
and one eye on our own lot.....
just keep an eye on the back burner....what are they trying to slip past us now......
paedophiles seem to have outlived their usefulness as detractors of the public gaze
one eye on the various enemies russia has
one eye on the russian mafia
and one eye on our own lot.....
just keep an eye on the back burner....what are they trying to slip past us now......
paedophiles seem to have outlived their usefulness as detractors of the public gaze
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:21 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:
Sassy and LF are right...!
Also... regarding 'Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey'... conveniently 'first on the scene to assist the Skipals'... reportedly giving CPR to the daughter... but then reported as being one of the first to be at the Skipal house too... and after then was reportedly becoming extremely sick from this 'nerve agent'... and subsequently hospitalised in intensive care and in a coma... only to then be reported as 'sitting up and talking' only a couple of days later...!
All seems a bit strange to me...!
Why does it seem strange?
The Uk and Russia would lose out on buisness and developement from this.
Thus both would lose out
At the end of the day it does not make any sense for the Uk government to lie based on this and even more that they are having the sample independently tested.
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:25 pm
Lord Foul wrote:just like most of your posts...
but opinion based on sound reasoning
1 why add millions to an already expensive program when its not necessary
2 because the damn stuff is so toxic that the presence of even 10% impurity would make no difference to its effectiveness
3 why add yet another processing/handling stage with all its attendand dangers
4 why create for yourself the problem of dealing with a stockpile of highly dangerous, malignant waste when you can just dump that on your enemy too?
finally BINARY agents cannot, by definition and use be purified....since they are mixed just before use...literally whatever the mix makes is what gets delivered
So yet more opinion
Baseless
Show me some real evidence to back your claims
Its that simple
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:34 pm
finally BINARY agents cannot, by definition and use be purified....since they are mixed just before use...literally whatever the mix makes is what gets delivered
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:37 pm
Lord Foul wrote:finally BINARY agents cannot, by definition and use be purified....since they are mixed just before use...literally whatever the mix makes is what gets delivered
So more opinion
Do you actually know how they test for this?
No, like I said, baseless
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:38 pm
Lord Foul wrote:finally BINARY agents cannot, by definition and use be purified....since they are mixed just before use...literally whatever the mix makes is what gets delivered
Quite. Binaries are made up of two chemicals that in themselves are harmless, it only when they are put together they become lethal and they are never mixed until that point. Quite honestly, they are terrifying, they can be carried about separately with no problem, would never be carried mixed.
Guest- Guest
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:39 pm
Didge wrote:Lord Foul wrote:just like most of your posts...
but opinion based on sound reasoning
1 why add millions to an already expensive program when its not necessary
2 because the damn stuff is so toxic that the presence of even 10% impurity would make no difference to its effectiveness
3 why add yet another processing/handling stage with all its attendand dangers
4 why create for yourself the problem of dealing with a stockpile of highly dangerous, malignant waste when you can just dump that on your enemy too?
finally BINARY agents cannot, by definition and use be purified....since they are mixed just before use...literally whatever the mix makes is what gets delivered
So yet more opinion
Baseless
Show me some real evidence to back your claims
Its that simple
I suppose hard cold common sense is beyond a drone
yes its opinion ...so what...as valid...and probably more so given my science background than yours....
If YOU want to spend hours googling then please be my guest....I'm not in this to cater to your fetishes
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:40 pm
Didge wrote:Lord Foul wrote:finally BINARY agents cannot, by definition and use be purified....since they are mixed just before use...literally whatever the mix makes is what gets delivered
So more opinion
Do you actually know how they test for this?
No, like I said, baseless
which just goes to show that on this subject you are an total ignoramus
Victorismyhero- INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
- Posts : 11441
Join date : 2015-11-06
Re: Corbyn Refuses to Condemn Russia
by Guest Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:41 pm
Lord Foul wrote:Didge wrote:
So yet more opinion
Baseless
Show me some real evidence to back your claims
Its that simple
I suppose hard cold common sense is beyond a drone
yes its opinion ...so what...as valid...and probably more so given my science background than yours....
If YOU want to spend hours googling then please be my guest....I'm not in this to cater to your fetishes
How about you actually provide the forum, what methods the scientists used to verify their claim?
So how is your opinion common sense, when its based on a hunch and not knowing here?
So its down to you to prove your claims
Not me buddy
Guest- Guest
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Similar topics» Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA for terrorist atrocities
» Corbyn's closest allies do a U-TURN on Russia: Labour leadership insist they DO believe Putin is behind nerve agent attack after their leader's refusal to condemn the Kremlin over spy poisoning
» Will Jeremy Corbyn condemn the shooting of Khalid Masood? (Hence the Far Left Are Idiots)
» Jeremy Corbyn refuses to denounce terrorist 'friends' Hamas and Hezbollah
» Jeremy Corbyn is right about Russia
» Corbyn's closest allies do a U-TURN on Russia: Labour leadership insist they DO believe Putin is behind nerve agent attack after their leader's refusal to condemn the Kremlin over spy poisoning
» Will Jeremy Corbyn condemn the shooting of Khalid Masood? (Hence the Far Left Are Idiots)
» Jeremy Corbyn refuses to denounce terrorist 'friends' Hamas and Hezbollah
» Jeremy Corbyn is right about Russia
Page 1 of 3
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
» Interesting COVID figures
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
» Quill
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
» PHEW.
» And here's some more enrichment...
» John F Kennedy Assassination
» Where is everyone lately...?
» London violence over the weekend...
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...