2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

DD, I'm not naming people - accept that.

 

I have pointed out behaviours - accept that. 

 

If I name someone then yes that might  be a smear, but if someone spends their own time and effort spreading conspiracy theories and pro-Russia propaganda then they expose themselves by their own words. 

 

 

Why on earth would I "accept that"!

 

Either give up on talking about the ""Russian propaganda merchants" (on this forum) - or name them.

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Its actually and on going murder investigation. 

Perhaps as good a reason to avoid hair brained speculation as any.

 

If it's an ongoing investigation, how is it possible that someone, Russia in this case, has already been found guilty, judged and sentenced (expulsion of diplomats)?

 

Just now, Brunolem said:

 

If it's an ongoing investigation, how is it possible that someone, Russia in this case, has already been found guilty, judged and sentenced (expulsion of diplomats)?

 

It appears you are confusing international relations and diplomacy between the UK and Russia with the work of the police and justice system in the UK.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It appears you are confusing international relations and diplomacy between the UK and Russia with the work of the police and justice system in the UK.

 

 

Do you mean that the expulsion of diplomats was not a sanction against Russia in direct connection to the Skripal case?

1 minute ago, Brunolem said:

Do you mean that the expulsion of diplomats was not a sanction against Russia in direct connection to the Skripal case?

No.

 

The expulsion of the Russian diplomats was absolutely  a sanction against Russia in direct connection to the Skripal case.

 

A diplomatic response and nothing to do with the current ongoing murder investigation.

 

8 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

 

If it's an ongoing investigation, how is it possible that someone, Russia in this case, has already been found guilty, judged and sentenced (expulsion of diplomats)?

 

 

So what's your point?

5 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

Do you mean that the expulsion of diplomats was not a sanction against Russia in direct connection to the Skripal case?

He's right though. There's no obligation for U.K to present any evidence before expelling diplomats. That can be done at whim. However, it's quite unprecedented to do it. You would expect a country like the U.K to wait to do that until they have evidence, and certainly not lie to its people and allies and say that they knew for sure it originated from Russia. Kudos to Porton Down for having the balls to call them out on their lie.

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No.

 

The expulsion of the Russian diplomats was absolutely  a sanction against Russia in direct connection to the Skripal case.

 

A diplomatic response and nothing to do with the current ongoing murder investigation.

 

 

So what's your point?

My point is: if the criminal investigation ends up with another conclusion than "the Russians did it!", will the UK government officially apologize and call back the expulsed diplomats?

Just now, Brunolem said:

My point is: if the criminal investigation ends up with another conclusion than "the Russians did it!", will the UK government officially apologize and call back the expulsed diplomats?

No country did after their lie was exposed. So I doubt it. 

3 minutes ago, tumama said:

He's right though. There's no obligation for U.K to present any evidence before expelling diplomats. That can be done at whim. However, it's quite unprecedented to do it. You would expect a country like the U.K to wait to do that until they have evidence, and certainly not lie to its people and allies and say that they knew for sure it originated from Russia. Kudos to Porton Down for having the balls to call them out on their lie.

 

Unfortnately, today's UK is not what it used to be...

2 minutes ago, tumama said:

He's right though. There's no obligation for U.K to present any evidence before expelling diplomats. That can be done at whim. However, it's quite unprecedented to do it. You would expect a country like the U.K to wait to do that until they have evidence, and certainly not lie to its people and allies and say that they knew for sure it originated from Russia. Kudos to Porton Down for having the balls to call them out on their lie.

 

I certainly agree that the UK government should have waited for advice from the security and chemical weapons specialists before accusing Russia. Jeremy Corbyn argued exactly that.

 

However, the presumption that the UK government should reveal evidence is flawed. 

 

As we have discussed at length in the past, evidence of foreign government actions is very often derived from intelligence sources or by means of intelligence methods that the government has very sound reasons  not to reveal.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

My point is: if the criminal investigation ends up with another conclusion than "the Russians did it!", will the UK government officially apologize and call back the expulsed diplomats?

I have no idea. 

 

I don't speak for the government. 

1 minute ago, Brunolem said:

Unfortnately, today's UK is not what it used to be...

 

I hope Jeremy Corbyn will be the next PM. Maybe Julian Assange can finally go free. 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I certainly agree that the UK government should have waited for advice from the security and chemical weapons specialists before accusing Russia. Jeremy Corbyn argued exactly that.

 

However, the presumption that the UK government should reveal evidence is flawed. 

 

As we have discussed at length in the past, evidence of foreign government actions is very often derived from intelligence sources or by means of intelligence methods that the government has very sound reasons  not to reveal.

 

But they did reveal evidence, which they later used to get other countries to expel diplomats. Problem is, that evidence was made up. 

Just now, tumama said:

 

I hope Jeremy Corbyn will be the next PM. Maybe Julian Assange can finally go free. 

I sincerely hope Corbyn is the next PM.

 

Nobody is detaining Assange, he can leave his self imposed confinement whenever he feels like  it.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I sincerely hope Corbyn is the next PM.

 

Nobody is detaining Assange, he can leave his self imposed confinement whenever he feels like  it.

 

U.N respectfully disagrees. You gotta be really stupid or blind if you think U.K would violate international law for a bail breach. 

2 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

But they did reveal evidence, which they later used to get other countries to expel diplomats. Problem is, that evidence was made up. 

The expulsions came later, neither you nor I know what evidence was presented  by the UK to secure those expulsions. 

 

It may, as we have discussed in the past, been a 'basis of probability' decision. 

 

Diplomatic spats are not court cases, there is no requirement to present evidence or proof. 

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Nobody is detaining Assange, he can leave his self imposed confinement whenever he feels like  it.

 

You mean that he can leave from his more or less comfortable confinement for a much less comfortable one!

4 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

U.N respectfully disagrees. You gotta be really stupid or blind if you think U.K would violate international law for a bail breach. 

The UN does not agree.

 

A concocted UN subcommittee  came to a decision that the UN has not ratified. 

 

FACT:

 

The UK has not locked Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy,  he walked in of his own free will and he can walk out of his own free will. 

 

4 hours ago, rct99q said:

In an earlier report there was some indication these were two drug users. So they probably found a half empty bottle thinking it to be some discarded drugs or what not.

Very unfortunate.

Drugs in a bottle? 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The expulsions came later, neither you nor I know what evidence was presented  by the UK to secure those expulsions. 

 

It may, as we have discussed in the past, been a 'basis of probability' decision. 

 

Diplomatic spats are not court cases, there is no requirement to present evidence or proof. 

 

No, it came before. The 3rd of April Porton Down released that statement. That was a 4 days after most countries. Just 2 out of 30 countries expelled diplomats after that announcement. 

4 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

 

You mean that he can leave from his more or less comfortable confinement for a much less comfortable one!

Well he'll get a day in court first. 

Quote

  4 hours ago, rct99q said:

In an earlier report there was some indication these were two drug users. So they probably found a half empty bottle thinking it to be some discarded drugs or what not.

Very unfortunate.

 

This is the part I have a problem with. Why would he think it's drugs? And then why didn't he drink it? Why would he take it home with him? Gonna be interesting to hear what he says. 

2 minutes ago, The manic said:

Drugs in a bottle? 

Maybe they were glue sniffers and they thought that the bottle contained some nice liquid glue...

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The UN does not agree.

 

A concocted UN subcommittee  came to a decision that the UN has not ratified. 

 

FACT:

 

The UK has not locked Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy,  he walked in of his own free will and he can walk out of his own free will. 

 

 

UN has subcommittees yes, which are a part of the UN. And UN says he can't walk out of his own free will because U.K will illegally arrest him. 

2 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

No, it came before. The 3rd of April Porton Down released that statement. That was a 4 days after most countries. Just 2 out of 30 countries expelled diplomats after that announcement. 

Porton Down deals with the Chemical. 

 

Perhaps the Government presented evidence from intelligence sources that Porton Down has no access to. 

 

I certainly doubt the UK Government would act without taking advice and report from security and intelligence agencies.

 

And for the reasons we've discussed at length in the past, nobody would reasonably expect the UK to release security/intelligence.  

 

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Porton Down deals with the Chemical. 

 

Perhaps the Government presented evidence from intelligence sources that Porton Down has no access to. 

 

I certainly doubt the UK Government would act without taking advice and report from security and intelligence agencies.

 

And for the reasons we've discussed at length in the past, nobody would reasonably expect the UK to release security/intelligence.  

 

You're funny. Already forgot about the Iraq war have we? Sure, they could have presented other nations with classified information. But I very much doubt it. Because then why did they lie about the origins of it?

Just now, tumama said:

 

UN has subcommittees yes, which are a part of the UN. And UN says he can't walk out of his own free will because U.K will illegally arrest him. 

Somebody who works for the UN says that. 

 

The UN has not endorsed the statement. 

 

The accusation that the UK would 'illegally' arrest Assange is one that his lawyers can put to the court if/when he is arrested. 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well he'll get a day in court first. 

His day in court for jumping bail, or for extradition to Guantanamo Bay?

Just now, tumama said:

 

You're funny. Already forgot about the Iraq war have we? Sure, they could have presented other nations with classified information. But I very much doubt it. Because then why did they lie about the origins of it?

Not getting anywhere with the subject under discussion I see.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Somebody who works for the UN says that. 

 

The UN has not endorsed the statement. 

 

The accusation that the UK would 'illegally' arrest Assange is one that his lawyers can put to the court if/when he is arrested. 

 

No, the UN body said that. I forgot which one and I don't think it matters. U.K has signed that treaty, and are thus obligated to respect it. So why wouldn't they do that if it was just about a bail breach? Because in doing so, they put their own citizens at risk. Next time that UN body rules in U.K's favor. Why would any other country respect the ruling?