Top Tweets for #EngEstab

11 days ago

Anyone in their right mind never thought otherwise. The English Establishment's secret services have been manipulating, killing and lying to, the people of the UK for 400 years. #SkripalsFarce #FrancisBaconPlus #EvilAlbion #EngEstab

David Miller

@Tracking_Power

12 days ago

Did UK intelligence stage the Salisbury Novichok attack? Excellent new article by Tim Norman (@timtron2020) - excerpts follow: The final report delivered to the public inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess, a British woman who died four months after the Russian state allegedly attempted to assassinate the former spy Sergei Skripal in 2018, did something unprecedented: it explicitly considered the possibility that UK intelligence had somehow staged the events. After spending some time considering this possibility in his report, the chair of the inquiry, retired Supreme Court judge Lord Anthony Hughes, decided that he was “sure” such staging had not occurred. But how did Hughes arrive at this certainty? ... So let us do what Hughes did not. How would a staging hypothesis fit the evidence if there was no Novichok in Salisbury on Sunday, 4 March? Let us imagine that the two Russians were not actually in Salisbury to kill Skripal. Let us imagine that they were somehow set up, and the Novichok narrative was fabricated by UK intelligence after the event. How would this explain the evidence? No Novichok would explain why Skripal’s cat, shut in the house after it allegedly became contaminated, survived. Nash van Drake exhibited no symptoms of poisoning while he was in the house even though he had “likely” been exposed to the nerve agent, according to the inquiry. The cat was eventually euthanised “for its welfare” because it was “distressed”. No Novichok would explain why there was no mass casualty event among the police officers who were reported by BBC Wiltshire going in and out of the supposedly contaminated door “with little or no protective clothing” in the days after the door was allegedly contaminated, before it was identified as the supposed source of the contamination. No Novichok would explain why pub and restaurant staff suffered no cross-contamination or ill effects after handling the glasses, plates and utensils that the Skripals had touched with hands that had supposedly been contaminated with deadly nerve agent shortly before. No Novichok would explain why the pub and restaurant could both remain open the following day without any members of the public being affected by the alleged contamination there — contamination supposedly so severe that it led to them both being shut down for a cleanup operation that lasted many months. No Novichok would explain the complete absence of cross-contamination at the bench where the Skripals collapsed. No contamination of Colonel Alison McCourt, the British Army’s chief nursing officer, or her teenage daughter Abigail. No contamination of Dr Helen Ord. No contamination of the members of the public who assisted. No contamination of the police officers who responded or the paramedics who treated the Skripals. No Novichok would explain why the local boys who joined the Skripals to feed ducks on the River Avon, taking bread from their just-contaminated hands — and even by some reports eating some of the bread — were unaffected, as were the ducks themselves. No Novichok would explain why DS Nick Bailey, who the inquiry heard had entered Skripal’s house and was exposed to poison there, experienced relatively mild symptoms — fever and hallucinations — from which he made a full physical recovery. No Novichok would explain why his colleague PC Bell, who was also exposed at the house, developed nothing more than a twitching eye, while another officer, VN005, merely experienced a numb finger. While this may be evidence of some kind of poison, it is not convincing evidence that any of them were exposed to a weapon of mass destruction. No Novichok would explain why Dr Stephen Cockroft would be so “gobsmacked” after Yulia Skripal woke up in hospital — and was strong enough to attempt to get out of bed — just four days after her supposed exposure to an incredibly deadly nerve agent. No Novichok would explain why both Skripals survived an incapacitating dose of this poison, even though they were initially diagnosed and treated for something else — an opiate overdose — in the first 24 hours of their treatment, with no special precautions taken for cross-contamination by the medics treating them. None of these medics were affected. No Novichok would explain the Skripals’ rapid recovery, which the doctors treating them said they were “exceptionally surprised” by, and could not easily explain. And no Novichok would explain why, in what might be called the proto-narrative of Novichok contamination, specialist teams in yellow hazmat suits were deployed to the London Road cemetery in a highly visible decontamination operation, only for that story to be later abandoned when it became clear the timeline of contamination was impossible. The cemetery operation reveals the pattern of staging Hughes failed to consider. Novichok was “found” wherever the narrative required it to be found — at the cemetery (until the timeline collapsed), at the bench (despite no cross-contamination), at the pub and restaurant (despite staff handling contaminated items safely), at the door handle (despite police using it unprotected for days). And when evidence of its absence was inconvenient for the narrative, this was overlooked — the ducks that were fed, the people who gave first aid, the medical staff who treated the Skripals without barrier nursing — or even, in the case of Skripal’s cat, destroyed. When Hughes writes that “all the evidence shows” Novichok was applied to the door handle on Sunday, he is presenting the absence of evidence as the presence of proof. The absence of cross-contamination actually suggests the opposite: that there was no deadly nerve agent on the door handle, which is why everyone who came into contact with it survived. Hughes returns to his arguments from incredulity in his final paragraph considering the possibility that the Salisbury events were staged. f. On top of all that, there is no suggested way in which the UK authorities, if bent on staging an attack designed to look as if these two men had carried it out, could have had the remotest inkling that their designated unwitting pawns would then obligingly walk into the immediate area of the Skripals’ home The expressions of personal disbelief Hughes makes here are the phrases “no suggested way” and “remotest inkling”. This is his final flourish. Even granting everything else, he says, how could UK authorities have known the two Russians would visit Christie Miller Road? But this simply uses the circular logic Hughes has used throughout §3.123. If the two Russians were under surveillance — which Hughes conceded was a possibility, if only in order to dismiss it — then UK authorities would know in real time what the two Russians’ movements were. The visits would not need to be anticipated. The language Hughes uses here is once again opaque — he says again “there is no suggested way” in which the UK authorities could have been tracking the Russians, even though the police later produced detailed logs of their movements. This in fact suggests the UK authorities had the technical capability to follow where their “unwitting pawns” were going — but as it was not a suggestion Hughes made himself, it was not one he considered. Once again, Hughes assumes that staging the events would involve actually putting Novichok on Skripal’s door, requiring knowledge of the movements of the Russians: movements that he says could not have been anticipated. But staging could mean constructing the entire Novichok narrative post hoc, selecting which elements to emphasise and which to ignore. We have observed Hughes taking six paragraphs to present variations of the same argument from incredulity: “I cannot imagine how UK staging could have worked, therefore it did not happen.” But arguments from incredulity are not evidence. §3.124 I conclude that I am sure that there was no staging of the Salisbury event by the UK authorities, designed to blame Russia Having spent six paragraphs constructing a staging hypothesis designed to be impossible and duly dismissing it as impossible, Hughes declares himself “sure” that no staging occurred. However, as we have seen, this certainty rests on the constraints he has imposed on the circumstances of the Salisbury events as he defined them: the assertion that the UK’s surveillance network could not have detected the Russians until the day before the alleged attack; the assertion that the UK authorities could not have anticipated their movements; the assertion that staging would require genuine Novichok applied in real time. Hughes did not actually consider whether or not the events were staged. Instead he considered whether or not UK intelligence could have somehow carried out the attack he suggests the two Russians carried out: circular logic presented as judicial certainty. Of course, if there was no Novichok in Salisbury, that would imply UK intelligence and its media operatives are capable of fabricating a story about weapons of mass destruction in order to manufacture consent for war. It is for the reader to decide if they are capable of that. Link in replies.

Tracking_Power's tweet photo. Did UK intelligence stage the Salisbury Novichok attack?

Excellent new article by Tim Norman (@timtron2020) - excerpts follow:

The final report delivered to the public inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess, a British woman who died four months after the Russian state allegedly attempted to assassinate the former spy Sergei Skripal in 2018, did something unprecedented: it explicitly considered the possibility that UK intelligence had somehow staged the events.

After spending some time considering this possibility in his report, the chair of the inquiry, retired Supreme Court judge Lord Anthony Hughes, decided that he was “sure” such staging had not occurred.

But how did Hughes arrive at this certainty?

...

So let us do what Hughes did not. How would a staging hypothesis fit the evidence if there was no Novichok in Salisbury on Sunday, 4 March?

Let us imagine that the two Russians were not actually in Salisbury to kill Skripal. Let us imagine that they were somehow set up, and the Novichok narrative was fabricated by UK intelligence after the event.

How would this explain the evidence?

No Novichok would explain why Skripal’s cat, shut in the house after it allegedly became contaminated, survived. Nash van Drake exhibited no symptoms of poisoning while he was in the house even though he had “likely” been exposed to the nerve agent, according to the inquiry. The cat was eventually euthanised “for its welfare” because it was “distressed”.

No Novichok would explain why there was no mass casualty event among the police officers who were reported by BBC Wiltshire going in and out of the supposedly contaminated door “with little or no protective clothing” in the days after the door was allegedly contaminated, before it was identified as the supposed source of the contamination.

No Novichok would explain why pub and restaurant staff suffered no cross-contamination or ill effects after handling the glasses, plates and utensils that the Skripals had touched with hands that had supposedly been contaminated with deadly nerve agent shortly before. No Novichok would explain why the pub and restaurant could both remain open the following day without any members of the public being affected by the alleged contamination there — contamination supposedly so severe that it led to them both being shut down for a cleanup operation that lasted many months.

No Novichok would explain the complete absence of cross-contamination at the bench where the Skripals collapsed. No contamination of Colonel Alison McCourt, the British Army’s chief nursing officer, or her teenage daughter Abigail. No contamination of Dr Helen Ord. No contamination of the members of the public who assisted. No contamination of the police officers who responded or the paramedics who treated the Skripals.

No Novichok would explain why the local boys who joined the Skripals to feed ducks on the River Avon, taking bread from their just-contaminated hands — and even by some reports eating some of the bread — were unaffected, as were the ducks themselves.

No Novichok would explain why DS Nick Bailey, who the inquiry heard had entered Skripal’s house and was exposed to poison there, experienced relatively mild symptoms — fever and hallucinations — from which he made a full physical recovery. No Novichok would explain why his colleague PC Bell, who was also exposed at the house, developed nothing more than a twitching eye, while another officer, VN005, merely experienced a numb finger.

While this may be evidence of some kind of poison, it is not convincing evidence that any of them were exposed to a weapon of mass destruction.

No Novichok would explain why Dr Stephen Cockroft would be so “gobsmacked” after Yulia Skripal woke up in hospital — and was strong enough to attempt to get out of bed — just four days after her supposed exposure to an incredibly deadly nerve agent.

No Novichok would explain why both Skripals survived an incapacitating dose of this poison, even though they were initially diagnosed and treated for something else — an opiate overdose — in the first 24 hours of their treatment, with no special precautions taken for cross-contamination by the medics treating them. None of these medics were affected.

No Novichok would explain the Skripals’ rapid recovery, which the doctors treating them said they were “exceptionally surprised” by, and could not easily explain.

And no Novichok would explain why, in what might be called the proto-narrative of Novichok contamination, specialist teams in yellow hazmat suits were deployed to the London Road cemetery in a highly visible decontamination operation, only for that story to be later abandoned when it became clear the timeline of contamination was impossible.

The cemetery operation reveals the pattern of staging Hughes failed to consider. Novichok was “found” wherever the narrative required it to be found — at the cemetery (until the timeline collapsed), at the bench (despite no cross-contamination), at the pub and restaurant (despite staff handling contaminated items safely), at the door handle (despite police using it unprotected for days). And when evidence of its absence was inconvenient for the narrative, this was overlooked — the ducks that were fed, the people who gave first aid, the medical staff who treated the Skripals without barrier nursing — or even, in the case of Skripal’s cat, destroyed.

When Hughes writes that “all the evidence shows” Novichok was applied to the door handle on Sunday, he is presenting the absence of evidence as the presence of proof. The absence of cross-contamination actually suggests the opposite: that there was no deadly nerve agent on the door handle, which is why everyone who came into contact with it survived.

Hughes returns to his arguments from incredulity in his final paragraph considering the possibility that the Salisbury events were staged.

f. On top of all that, there is no suggested way in which the UK authorities, if bent on staging an attack designed to look as if these two men had carried it out, could have had the remotest inkling that their designated unwitting pawns would then obligingly walk into the immediate area of the Skripals’ home

The expressions of personal disbelief Hughes makes here are the phrases “no suggested way” and “remotest inkling”. This is his final flourish. Even granting everything else, he says, how could UK authorities have known the two Russians would visit Christie Miller Road?

But this simply uses the circular logic Hughes has used throughout §3.123. If the two Russians were under surveillance — which Hughes conceded was a possibility, if only in order to dismiss it — then UK authorities would know in real time what the two Russians’ movements were. The visits would not need to be anticipated.

The language Hughes uses here is once again opaque — he says again “there is no suggested way” in which the UK authorities could have been tracking the Russians, even though the police later produced detailed logs of their movements. This in fact suggests the UK authorities had the technical capability to follow where their “unwitting pawns” were going — but as it was not a suggestion Hughes made himself, it was not one he considered.

Once again, Hughes assumes that staging the events would involve actually putting Novichok on Skripal’s door, requiring knowledge of the movements of the Russians: movements that he says could not have been anticipated. But staging could mean constructing the entire Novichok narrative post hoc, selecting which elements to emphasise and which to ignore.

We have observed Hughes taking six paragraphs to present variations of the same argument from incredulity: “I cannot imagine how UK staging could have worked, therefore it did not happen.”

But arguments from incredulity are not evidence.

§3.124 I conclude that I am sure that there was no staging of the Salisbury event by the UK authorities, designed to blame Russia

Having spent six paragraphs constructing a staging hypothesis designed to be impossible and duly dismissing it as impossible, Hughes declares himself “sure” that no staging occurred.

However, as we have seen, this certainty rests on the constraints he has imposed on the circumstances of the Salisbury events as he defined them: the assertion that the UK’s surveillance network could not have detected the Russians until the day before the alleged attack; the assertion that the UK authorities could not have anticipated their movements; the assertion that staging would require genuine Novichok applied in real time.

Hughes did not actually consider whether or not the events were staged. Instead he considered whether or not UK intelligence could have somehow carried out the attack he suggests the two Russians carried out: circular logic presented as judicial certainty.

Of course, if there was no Novichok in Salisbury, that would imply UK intelligence and its media operatives are capable of fabricating a story about weapons of mass destruction in order to manufacture consent for war.

It is for the reader to decide if they are capable of that.

Link in replies.

824

454

297

38K

103

Top Tweets for #EngEstab

Last Seen Hashtags on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users