I repeat my question "how do you know they do not have tangible proof"?

"now we hear it can stay around for a long time.....by the exact same government body." Do you have a source for this statement?

It's the other way around. You accuse someone of something, you show proof. The fact that they haven't shown anything means they don't have it. Simple.

They would come out with it to proof how right they were and to enlist the help of the international community.


Trump is meeting Putin soon, the UK would love to have the USA on board with this "incident"


We've heard all the rhetoric from the UK govt ministers, it is now time to show some evidence...


The story of the boy who cried wolf ???.......

I'd say WMDs in Iraq instead.

Again
"now we hear it can stay around for a long time.....by the exact same government body." Do you have a source for this statement?

Read the reports from Skripal case and the reports today, don't need a "source" just need to read what they already said and what they say now

It is simple in a constitutional state:
You accuse somebody - as long as you don't show proof it is defamation or even slander.

The question is: Is England a constitutional state?

No, you posted "now we hear it can stay around for a long time.....by the exact same government body."

If you cannot provide a source that the exact same government body said this then you were lying, sorry to so post but you must support your fallacious claim or withdraw it!

Fallacious claim? He must?
You surprise me tonight, marton.

How ever, let me help out here (towards the end of the video):
The Guardian

There is nothing in the video or the article that supports ""we were told the Novichoks was quickly dissipated in the atmosphere and would be reduced harmless by humidity - now we hear it can stay around for a long time.....by the exact same government body."

There is a theory in the article that the victims found a sealed container of poison and opened it, but there is no evidence yet to support this theory.

Do you see the difference between "quickly dissipated in the atmosphere" vs a "sealed container", the reason they are talking about a "sealed container" is because they know the poison is "quickly dissipated in the atmosphere"

Since when do you need evidence? All along you've been saying its the Russians without any evidence whatsoever. Selective a bit?

When did I say "its the Russians"?

If the Russians/Putin etc. wanted to kill someone, wouldn't they just do it? Staged robbery? Fake drug overdose? Run a car off a bridge? Toss someone off of a hotel balcony and call it suicide?

Why the top secret poisons, which would only be available to state actors, which don't even work?... :roll eyes:

Are we supposed to believe that the Russian gov't is both completely unscrupulous and inept? (depending on one's view of government in general it may just be that way by default..)

Anything is possible but the UK gov. should display some evidence before demanding an explanation from Russia.

__________________
you are being programmed

It is not that the poisons do not work.
It is that in the half century since the poisons were invented medical treatments have vastly improved.
Even after such successful treatment it is likely patients will have continuing problems and a shorter life expectation.

All the more reason to toss someone out of a window

That is a strange "battle" you seem to want to fight here.

The video (which has now been exchanged, I HATE the way they just change news, instead of providing them linearly = destroy proof of what's been said)
an official clearly stated that novichok can stay around for a long time.

The sentence "we were told the Novichoks was quickly dissipated in the atmosphere and would be reduced harmless by humidity - now we hear it can stay around for a long time.....by the exact same government body." may not have been used by an official (obviously not, ROFL) or the media but it was what Today Only expressed after reading/hearing the two infos. He tends to put 2 and 2 together and think for himself? (An adorable, seldom quality ).

However, let's move on. You two don't agree. Can't see a problem there.
I know you as someone who provides good information here but personally I do think you missed that little bit yesterday (and there's gotta be a reason they quickly removed/replaced it).

What puzzles me: The diverse labs said it was not Novichok? Is sthat correct? Then why does England insist on Novichok?
England could not test it themselves? So why can they now? And so quickly?
Why are they attacked by two's? Why do not more people at a time get affected?
The moment the discussion about this dies down, it happens again? To two people only?
Who are these latest victims? What's their history?
What does England gain from all this? "Look we need the protection of the EU?"
What does Russia (should it be the Russians) gain from this?

__________________
It's all a matter or perspective.
So move your butt and look at it from the other side

For a conspiracy theory to work, there must be zero proof. In fact, the less proof there is, the stronger the conspiracy theory. Moreover, its not even about proof anymore. You stack constant accusations against someone for a long enough time and at some point the public believes he's guilty irrelevant of whether there is any evidence. The public will just remember it was the Russians.

It is obvious inn't

This poisoning was organised by the UK Govt. Very soon they will "find" a canister clearly labelled in Russian, " Novochok, property of Putin's Govt., only to be used on Sergei Skripal"

Basically, I wanted to know which government body said it and what was the basis for this? Obviously it is a very major health risk if the poison is still hanging around.
Incidentally Vladimir Uglev, who worked on the substances for 15 years, had said the nerve agent would likely stick around in Salisbury for many years to come. It was “near impossible” to detect, he added; it would be hard to know where it may be lurking.

“The substance can absorb itself into any soft surface, whether trees, leather, or park benches,” he said. “From there it can be absorbed onto people’s skin with all the consequences.”

Source

England, at Porton Down, tested the Skripal poison and found it to be Novichok.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) independently tested the poison and their official report said
Source

It is a relatively simple and quick test to chemically identify this poison.
You can read about here!

The APD 2000, manufactured by Environmental Technologies Group (ETG), can detect nerve agents in the environment and will sound an alarm. Costs less than CHF 5,000 in ebay..

Not got much to add but one thing seems 'funny' to me and that is the relatively close proximity of the Portland Down facility. It strikes me that there must somehow be a connection to this. What that is however is not obvious. One can only hope the police are thoroughly checking all possibilities in this respect.