Former Russian spy critically ill in Britain after exposure to unidentified substance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As far as I know, he's a BRITISH citizen

---

As far as I know, is he still a dual national, or do you know if he has renounced his RUSSIAN citizenship?

Furthermore if that were the case then the Russians would know this for sure, and would not be perusing this angle with such enthusiasm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

She has said she does not want to talk to them.

---

Under the convention that makes no difference whether she wants to talk to them or not. The Russians are following due process and have every right to ask for access, by refusing access the British government are clearly in breach of the convention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If they want to get all pouty about it, I'd suggest they revoke his Russian passport.

---

That would be a retrospective action (after the Russians had asked for access), and hence would not withstand legal scrutiny. Correct me if I am wrong, but only the Russians and Interpol can revoke a Russian passport. Imagine if any country can revoke passports of any other country, that would surely be a recipe for chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Listerman

As far as I know, is he still a dual national, or do you know if he has renounced his RUSSIAN citizenship?

Furthermore if that were the case then the Russians would know this for sure, and would not be perusing this angle with such enthusiasm



Under the convention that makes no difference whether she wants to talk to them or not. The Russians are following due process and have every right to ask for access, by refusing access the British government are clearly in breach of the convention.




That would be a retrospective action (after the Russians had asked for access), and hence would not withstand legal scrutiny. Correct me if I am wrong, but only the Russians and Interpol can revoke a Russian passport. Imagine if any country can revoke passports of any other country, that would surely be a recipe for chaos.

---

All very fanciful, but in this case it seems Putin is all upset because he can't order his citizens around, jail them, beat them up or feed them Polonium tea.

I would imagine he's jolly upset about that.

Only a fucking idiot would think they are being held against their will.

If it were in Russia and the boot on the other foot, on the other hand....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Only a fucking idiot would think they are being held against their will.

---

I do.

Quote:

---

5. According to Articles 36 and 37 of the 1963 Vienna Convention and Article 35 (1) of the 1965 Consular Convention, as citizens of the Russian Federation, both Mr Skripal (who retains dual nationality) and his daughter are entitled to consular access from the Russian Embassy in London. In the statement released by Scotland Yard on behalf of Yulia Skripal on 11th April, she stated that she was “aware of my specific contacts at the Russian Embassy who have kindly offered me their assistance in any way they can,” but then went on to say that she did not wish “to avail myself of their services”.
However, during the period when both she and her father were in a coma, neither was in a position to either request, or to refuse, consular access. In this case, denial of consular access when their wishes remained unknown could be seen to constitute a breach of their legal rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Can the Government comment on how the decision was arrived at to assume that the Skripals would not want consular access, since this could not have been known whilst they were unconscious?

---

http://www.theblogmire.com/the-lady-and-the-curiously-absent-suspect-yet-another-20-questions-on-the-skripal-case/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Only a fucking idiot would think they are being held against their will.

---

Highly likely...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

I do.

http://www.theblogmire.com/the-lady-and-the-curiously-absent-suspect-yet-another-20-questions-on-the-skripal-case/

---

Again:

They tried to kill them. So why the fuck would they want to meet the bastards?

And what's the point of meeting them if they're in a coma anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They tried to kill them

---

They? Who?

Yes, they needed to have a case against Putin. Anything highly likely...

If not Crimea, nor Malaysia plane crash, election meddling, chemical weapons, subsea cable cutting, jeopardizing peaceful bombarders at Russian boarder, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And what's the point of meeting them if they're in a coma anyway?

---

May be to confirm that they really are in coma's and in hospital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They tried to kill them.

---

There is no factual proof the Russians did it. Not even the nerve agent, IF that was what poisoned them, cannot be linked directly to the Russians.

Quote:

---

British Prime Minister Theresa May says that because it was Russia that developed Novichok agents, it is “highly likely” that Russia either attacked the Skripals itself, or lost control of its Novichok to someone else who did. But other countries legally created Novichok for testing purposes after its existence was revealed in 1992,

---

The US obtained it when they cleaned up the testing site.

Quote:

---

There is no factual proof the Russians did it. Not even the nerve agent, IF that was what poisoned them, cannot be linked directly to the Russians.

---

IF Russians wanted to poison them, they would be dead on the spot. It would save the UK all the cost with the weeks going show...

Quote:

---

But other countries legally created Novichok for testing purposes

---

Also UK has got it - "for its testing purposes" - how else would they know it is Novichok?

Czech army's main function within NATO is "Chemical Warfare Agents (CWA) and Nuclear Weapons Defence (NWD)". That why they have many substances for their testing purposes, a. o. also Novichok:

Quote:

---

Main attention of the department is concentrated on the academic research:

Firstly, in the field of the analysis of highly toxic agents – it means not only Chemical Warfare Agents but also Toxic Industrial Chemicals, heavy metals and so on. NBC Defence Institute specialists concentrate their research on:

applied research in the area of CWA detection;
research of characteristics of new and potential CWA (R33, Novichok, PFIB);
research of characteristic of psychoactive agents (Kolokol-1), Herbicides and TICs;
research of biochemical cholinesterase methods.

---

https://www.unob.cz/en/nbcdi/Pages/C...epartment.aspx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

There is no factual proof the Russians did it.

---

There is no factual proof that you have seen.

But then again, you're an insignificant online gossip monger, so why would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

There is no factual proof that you have seen.

---

And you have? Harry I stopped believing in fairy tales aged about 3. You obviously still believe in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

And you have? Harry I stopped believing in fairy tales aged about 3. You obviously still believe in them.

---

Yet you seem to have manufactured one of your very own. The trouble is you can't actually articulate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Only a fucking idiot would think they are being held against their will.

---

I think that many who had been still suspicious of Putin's demonic actions - you named it (in fact, I named a few) - after the Skripal's affair they have made up definitively their mind... (not some here at TD)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The trouble is you can't actually articulate it.

---

I know that. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I don't suppose it's occurred to you that he might not want to meet the people that tried to kill him?

---

It is of no legal "importance" to the legality of his statement as to what "He" desires. It is for a Judge or Jury.

Unfortunately the evidence so far produced is a MET "statement". Delivered by the MET to the MSM. Third hand, not legal.

One would have thought 'arry, the MET and the MSM would know the law of "Legal Evidence". Obviously not.

Unless I missed it, I don't believe there has been a trial where the "evidence", the MET delivered "statement", has been accepted as "the truth" either by a judge or Jury.

As asserted by the Russian Ambassadoor to London when being asked by a "reporter", "Why will you not accept the MET's word for the situation"?, the Ambassadoor questioned the legality of the MET's statement.

"We want them to tell (us) personally what they want. If they don’t want our assistance, that’s fine, but we want to see them physically.”


For those interested this, below, is available from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eviden...ence_of_a_jury

1.

"The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury.^[1] The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction."

The "evidence" has not been accepted as truth.

2.

"Certain kinds of evidence, such as documentary evidence, are subject to the requirement that the offeror provide the trial judge with a certain amount of evidence (which need not be much and it need not be very strong) suggesting that the offered item of tangible evidence (e.g., a document, a gun) is what the offeror claims it is."

The MET has not proved to a judge or jury anything.

3.

"In systems of proof based on the English common law tradition, almost all evidence must be sponsored by a witness, who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth. The bulk of the law of evidence regulates the types of evidence that may be sought from witnesses and the manner in which the interrogation of witnesses is conducted such as during direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Other types of evidentiary rules specify the standards of persuasion (e.g., proof beyond a reasonable doubt) that a trier of fact—whether judge or jury—must apply when it assesses evidence."

The MET, has not sworn to anybody, that they are telling the truth ......... The alleged evidence has not been interrogated and cross examined at all before a judge or jury.

4.

"Hearsay is one of the largest and most complex areas of the law of evidence in common-law jurisdictions. The default rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A party is offering a statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the party is trying to prove that the assertion made by the declarant (the maker of the out-of-trial statement) is true. For example, prior to trial Bob says, "Jane went to the store."

If the party offering this statement as evidence at trial is trying to prove that Jane actually went to the store, the statement is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

In this instance, the party, ( MET) is asserting, not before a Judge or Jury, that (the gentleman concerned) "does not wish to ........" which may be thrown out as Hearsay.

5.

"Direct evidence is any evidence that directly proves or disproves a fact. The most well-known type of direct evidence is a testimony from an eye witness. In eye-witness testimonies the witness states exactly what they experienced, saw, or heard. Direct evidence may also be found in the form of documents."

No evidence has been produced in a court and cross-examined, before a judge or jury.

There are another 10 sections at the link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Next?

---

Your opinion of the law is somewhat tenuous.

The MET statement: published to all, but not accepted by a judge or jury in a court as legal.

Only 'arry, the MSM and UK officials seem to believe it's legal.



Statement issued on behalf of Yulia Skripal - Metropolitan Police

Links to press releases from the Russian Embassy in London which state which international laws and which bi-lateral legal Agreemnts the UK is ignoring.

https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6531

https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6531

http://treaties.fco.gov.uk/docs/pdf/1968/TS0092.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As far as I know, he's a BRITISH citizen,

---

He is also a Russian Citizen.

Cam someone clarify after all the warnings months back.

One of the most deadly substances fails to kill?
Those paid dupes who did Fatboys bro at KL airport seem to have instant results.So for a few grand can rent some bimbos to off anyone like here.
How would we evaluate if the whole thing was a hoax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhOh

One would have thought 'arry, the MET and the MSM would know the law of "Legal Evidence". Obviously not.

---

What is a "Legal Evidence" for them?
"Highly Likely"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david44

How would we evaluate if the whole thing was a hoax?

---

Torture the Skripals by waterboarding. That always seems productive.

Putin said it best- if this was a professionally carried out hit, they would have died on the spot. This is something different- but i don't pretend to know what.
The Russian mafia(s) have carried out several assassinations involving nerve agents. Why would Putin direct such an amateurish effort at such a low value target?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhOh

It is of no legal "importance" to the legality of his statement as to what "He" desires. It is for a Judge or Jury.

---

Some take them to court and STFU then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

Putin said it best- if this was a professionally carried out hit, they would have died on the spot. This is something different- but i don't pretend to know what.
The Russian mafia(s) have carried out several assassinations involving nerve agents. Why would Putin direct such an amateurish effort at such a low value target?

---

Putin Excuse #25... "It couldn't have been us, we're good at that shit".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Some take them to court and STFU then.

---

Sent an email to THE LORD, no response yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Only a fucking idiot would think they are being held against their will.

---

The problem is with your eloquent assessment is that the British secret services (and by extension, the British Government) have a serious credibility issue, ever since they said the Iraqis had missile ready WMD's which could be launched towards the UK at less an hours notice.

If they were prepared to go to war on a lie to that extreme, and kill thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, then who can believe what they say now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Again:

They tried to kill them. So why the fuck would they want to meet the bastards?

---

Under the convention the Skripals have no choice in the matter, the Russians have followed due protocol, and the onus is upon the British government to comply.

If the British government is not prepared to comply with international law, then the only credible alternative is that the Skripals are been held against their will.

Can you only imagine if the situation were reversed, and Russia was holding British citizens in this regard ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Listerman

The problem is with your eloquent assessment is that the British secret services (and by extension, the British Government) have a serious credibility issue, ever since they said the Iraqis had missile ready WMD's which could be launched towards the UK at less an hours notice.

If they were prepared to go to war on a lie to that extreme, and kill thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, then who can believe what they say now.

Under the convention the Skripals have no choice in the matter, the Russians have followed due protocol, and the onus is upon the British government to comply.

If the British government is not prepared to comply with international law, then the only credible alternative is that the Skripals are been held against their will.

Can you only imagine if the situation were reversed, and Russia was holding British citizens in this regard ?

---

You mean like when they refuse to send the Litvinenko suspect to the UK for questioning?

Yes, I can imagine. It's the diplomatic equivalent of saying "Fuck off".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Listerman

If they were prepared to go to war on a lie to that extreme, and kill thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, then who can believe what they say now.

---

Not only innocent Iraqi civilians but also their own... (dr. Kelly)