May told UK ‘only two Novichok alternatives’. What’s her/BBC’s excuse for ignoring this, then?

Theresa May told MPs and the country this week that we have no choice but to conclude Russia’s culpability for the nerve-agent attack – reportedly ‘Novichok’ – in Salisbury.

She based this claim on the idea that there are only two possible alternatives – either Russia committed the attack, or Russia ‘lost control’ of its chemical weapons. And, since the beastly Russians had only responded with sarcasm (!) to her demand that they pick one of her binary options, there was “no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable“:

This claim – that the only realistic answer to the provenance of the nerve agent attack is the Russian state, with a minute possibility that the Russian state negligently lost some ‘Novichok’ – has been treated as fact by the mainstream media, including the BBC News channel, as well as, to their shame, by Labour ‘moderates’.

None of them have any excuse.

A simple search for relevant keywords will immediately turn up the fact that – according to the BBC among other sources – there was another country that held major stocks of nerve agents.

Including ‘novichoks’.

Uzbekistan was a part of the Soviet Union until 1991, when it declared its independence. Eight years later, the BBC and other outlets reported that US experts were in Uzbekistan to help destroy its stocks of nerve-agents, especially novichoks – because Uzbekistan had been a major testing centre for the chemical weapons:



Uzbekistan was, for eight whole years, in possession of novichoks and not controlled by Russia. So there are several other possible scenarios, in addition to Mrs May’s ‘only two possible’ – that could easily have nothing whatever to do with the Russian government:

secret sales by Uzbekistan
theft from Uzbekistan by persons unknown
retention of samples by US personnel during the destruction process in 1999/2000 that later found their way into other hands

It’s even possible, though unlikely, that the US kept some and misused it.

Mrs May’s claim is simply untrue. As Jeremy Corbyn has stated, it’s quite possible that the Russian government was involved in the Salisbury attack. It could conceivable even be likely.

But it’s certainly not true that there is “no alternative conclusion“.

BBC News has no excuse for allowing Theresa May’s claim to pass unchallenged in any of its broadcasts – its own archives would make perfectly clear that there are other possibilities.

But that’s not all. Just yesterday, the BBC website published an article titled “Russian spy: what are Novichok agents and what do they do?“. That article repeats – again unchallenged – the position taken by the UK, US, Germany and France that Russian involvement in the attack is the “only plausible explanation“.

It also links directly to the same BBC article pictured above – but fails even to mention the possibility that the nerve-agent used in Salisbury originated in Uzbekistan when Uzbekistan was no longer Soviet-controlled.

So it’s not as though the BBC hadn’t noticed its old article on US de-commissioning of Novichoks in Uzbekistan and therefore treated Mrs May’s emphatic claim of only two possibilities as factual or reasonable.

These matters are not revelations. They are easily available to anyone who can use Google, let alone who has access to intelligence services or trained researchers.

Yet still the ‘MSM’, including the BBC, are acting as eager amplifiers for the government’s clearly-unsupportable claim that the “only plausible explanation” is direct Russian state involvement – and anti-Corbyn MPs are posturing about the need for Labour to ‘stand shoulder-to-shoulder’ with the government, when there’s no proof against whom we should be standing.

Corbyn, as usual, is on the right side of this issue – and in spite of the best efforts of the Establishment and media, their story to the contrary is rapidly unravelling.

After all, pretty much all of us can use the internet these days.

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/03/16/may-told-uk-only-two-novichok-alternatives-whats-her-bbcs-excuse-for-ignoring-this-then/

Ah more crap from the fake news Far left site

So now they use the BBC as their source.

One moment



You cannot make it up how desperate the far left are at trying to kiss Corbyn's arse

The whole article is geared to kiss his arse

This website, along with the rest of the country is not privy to the information the intelligence service has

So speculating with Bullshit as this extremist site does, is not going to change anything Stassi

She must spend hours looking for any little item that she thinks is bad news for the Tories. It's unfortunate for her that all these reports come from sources that are strangers to the truth. Why she wastes her time I don't know, when all other posters [except Andy], and Didge who rubbishes her bullshit with the truth totally ignore her posts !

nicko wrote:She must spend hours looking for any little item that she thinks is bad news for the Tories. It's unfortunate for her that all these reports come from sources that are strangers to the truth.    Why she wastes her time I don't know, when all other posters [except Andy], and Didge who rubbishes her bullshit with the truth totally ignore her posts !

+1

Russia is hardly a the kind of regime that anyone sensible would believe, its been proven time and again. An accusation was made and among their responses was that 'you shouldn't threaten a nuclear power' what kind of reponse is that from an even basically civilised nation. You may expect that from North Korea, wouldn't a resonably civilised government seek to prove their innocence of such accusations rather than bully and threaten, it appears nothing has actually changed glasnost etc within the Russian government anyway. Their attitude seems to comfirm their guilt.

Suggest you learn to read Nicko, the information on what happened is from the BBC, the one I just posted is from Rueters. As for spending time, nope, I just know how to read the net and discuss with truth tellers, not Murdoch owned liars. Funnily enough, more and more of them are realising we need the truth and stick to international law. That way, if it is Putin we have a watertight case. Shame May won't commit to stop selling Russia weapons grade nuclear material isn't it, but then, that would mean losing money, as would giving up the £3mill Russians have given the Conservatives. Then of couse there are the visas that they buy for £1mill.

Wonder how much Corbyn has taken in "back handers"?

Oh, BTW who stood up for Russian rebels in HOC? Corbyn. Who has been fighting to stop Russian dirty money being laundered in London? Corbyn. Who has been fighting him on that? May

nicko wrote:Wonder how much Corbyn has taken in "back handers"?

Indeed Nicko

nicko wrote:Wonder how much Corbyn has taken in "back handers"?

Nothing, that's the Conservative Party - fact.

Vintage wrote:Russia is hardly a the kind of regime that anyone sensible would believe, its been proven time and again. An accusation was made and among their responses was that 'you shouldn't threaten a nuclear power' what kind of reponse is that from an even basically civilised nation.  You may expect that from North Korea, wouldn't a resonably civilised government seek to prove their innocence of such accusations rather than bully and threaten, it appears nothing has actually changed glasnost etc within the Russian government anyway. Their attitude seems to comfirm their guilt.

Exactly Vintage, spot on

Whether Russia actually did do this or whether the nerve agent is loose, so to speak Russia will never admit anything. Its a strange coincidence that so many Russians who have left their country for political reasons are suddenly turning up dead, who except Russia would want that. The only conclusions can be Russia itself or by proxy or there is a conspiracy to drag the west and Russia and its allies into confrontation, possibly by rogue elements in Russia. If its the later surely no one can expect to win and recover to anywhere near a normal life? I can't see any advantage for anyone in the conspiracy scenario, unless they are completely insane of course.
Having said that I have read a few reports about Russia having enough underground bunkers to house a large part of its people, how true it is who knows,
its all very well having your people in shelters but how do you feed them at least in the long term when the outside world is contaminated. The same reports reckon in the we only the elite have access to deep bunkers. DUMB's.

I don't believe in coincidences anyway. But, whether and how a Russian-only nerve agent found its way, adrift on ambient air, to the body of an enemy of the Russian state, is a question too far.