• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

And you know this how? Any hard evidence or is it anecdotal or from The Guardian?

Presumably you are as able to research this as I am. If you do, you will find several reputable sources. Why you mention The Guardian I have no idea, other than to observe that your assumption is revealing! However, despite your attempted smokescreen, the real issue is the wording, and 'developed in Russia' is a far cry from 'Russian made' and I am sure you appreciate the distinction.
 
James O'Brien of LBC:


'If, as seems likely, May shared more intelligence with Merkel, Macron & Trump than she did with Corbyn then *everything* makes sense & the Labour leader’s been made to look a stooge'.




As Leader of the Opposition and a member of the Privy Council he's supposed to be kept as fully briefed on important security matters as the Prime Minister is. This looks very dodgy from the government circumventing democracy.

Of course the reason it seems likely is that they have made an assumption based on what ********* said compared to what they've all said. I suppose they're making that assumption because they can't believe he'd be so naive given the same information.
 
Presumably you are as able to research this as I am. If you do, you will find several reputable sources. Why you mention The Guardian I have no idea, other than to observe that your assumption is revealing! However, despite your attempted smokescreen, the real issue is the wording, and 'developed in Russia' is a far cry from 'Russian made' and I am sure you appreciate the distinction.

And completely as expected reply. Why would I want to research it myself? I asked you for your source seeing as you were the one that made the assertion in the first place. If you're being asked to provide proof of something by someone because you've made an unsubstantiated claim then the onus is surely on you provide it. You can't or don't then it's merely an opinion, nothing more.

And I mentioned The Guardian as a reflex action more than anything. For months and months now Guardian links and stories have been the only source of left wing political opinion on here. Apologies. ;)
 
Of course the reason it seems likely is that they have made an assumption based on what ********* said compared to what they've all said. I suppose they're making that assumption because they can't believe he'd be so naive given the same information.
assuming the person you have given a racist nickname to is Jeremy Corbyn - no - O'Brien is a respected broadcaster, if he passes on information that Corbyn has been denied data by May that she has shared with other foreign leaders then he believes that to be the case. There is more context to that but essentially he had been told that and believes it and has past it on. If true that goes against Parliamentary protocol and the set up of our democracy.
 
And completely as expected reply. Why would I want to research it myself? I asked you for your source seeing as you were the one that made the assertion in the first place. If you're being asked to provide proof of something by someone because you've made an unsubstantiated claim then the onus is surely on you provide it. You can't or don't then it's merely an opinion, nothing more.

And I mentioned The Guardian as a reflex action more than anything. For months and months now Guardian links and stories have been the only source of left wing political opinion on here. Apologies. ;)

How about responding to the main point? Developed is not synonymous with manufactured.
 
How about responding to the main point? Developed is not synonymous with manufactured.


I didn't know I was being asked to respond to that point but hey ho.

Fully agree, 'developed in' is not the same as 'manufactured in'. Even I, with my blinkered world view of things can see that :winking:

That still doesn't mean to say that the scientists and those 'in the know' i.e. not us, have got it wrong, or right for that matter.

I'm sitting firmly on the fence on this one. Do I believe all the 'Russia did it' I see and read? No. Do I believe all the alternative theories being banded about? Equally, no

All I can do, just like everyone else on here, is formulate an opinion based on what I believe to be true, and at the moment I don't know enough of the FACTS to put one forward that would convincingly counter the opposite.
 
I didn't know I was being asked to respond to that point but hey ho.

Fully agree, 'developed in' is not the same as 'manufactured in'. Even I, with my blinkered world view of things can see that :winking:

That still doesn't mean to say that the scientists and those 'in the know' i.e. not us, have got it wrong, or right for that matter.

I'm sitting firmly on the fence on this one. Do I believe all the 'Russia did it' I see and read? No. Do I believe all the alternative theories being banded about? Equally, no

All I can do, just like everyone else on here, is formulate an opinion based on what I believe to be true, and at the moment I don't know enough of the FACTS to put one forward that would convincingly counter the opposite.

Then you should have no problem agreeing with what Jeremy Corbyn has been proposing. :winking:
 
assuming the person you have given a racist nickname to is Jeremy Corbyn - no - O'Brien is a respected broadcaster, if he passes on information that Corbyn has been denied data by May that she has shared with other foreign leaders then he believes that to be the case. There is more context to that but essentially he had been told that and believes it and has past it on. If true that goes against Parliamentary protocol and the set up of our democracy.

He believes that to be the case. He doesn't know it's the case. He probably believes it because, given the same information, one person can't come to the same conclusion as everyone else.

Of course, we're all speculating here because none of us know what Corbyn knows and what he doesn't. However, to me it's telling that a lot of Labour MPs had to distance themselves from him because they did manage to come to a different conclusion that is in line with just about everybody else.
 
i answered your question clearly and in the terms the experts have used so we are all on the same page - yes I believe that they believe the chemicals came from Russia. What they haven't confirmed is that it was Russia that used them.

The actual wording from scientists at Porton Down, who apparently have been under great presure from the government, is 'developed in Russia'. That is a huge difference from 'made in Russia'.

It wouldn't be the responsibility of scientists to confirm if this attack was Russian ordered. Their job is/was to learn everything they could about this nerve agent. Which they have done.

The responibility of deciding who has used the nerve agent, is the job of our security services. Which they have done.

I'll look at it from your perspectives for a minute. You's clearly want more concrete proof, the same as JC. Ok. But, what if more definitive proof doesn't EVER come to light? What if, the best "proof" we've got, is the conclusions of experienced scientists & security personnel?

What actions/retaliations (if any) would you undertake, if you were in charge of our country?
 
He believes that to be the case. He doesn't know it's the case. He probably believes it because, given the same information, one person can't come to the same conclusion as everyone else.

Of course, we're all speculating here because none of us know what Corbyn knows and what he doesn't. However, to me it's telling that a lot of Labour MPs had to distance themselves from him because they did manage to come to a different conclusion that is in line with just about everybody else.

Please desist from using that nickname for Corbyn (which I have since changed). It is offensive and also undermines each post in which it appears.

Thanks.
 
Also, let's not forget that if Corbyn actually ascends into power, and gets his own way with regards to Trident, then our country would be weaker & more vulnerable to attacks just like these.
 
Also, let's not forget that if Corbyn actually ascends into power, and gets his own way with regards to Trident, then our country would be weaker & more vulnerable to attacks just like these.

The effect will be much much bigger and wider than that; do not doubt that there would be a huge loss of trust/sharing from our core, central allies regards UK security and defence if JC ever got in No.10
 
Also, let's not forget that if Corbyn actually ascends into power, and gets his own way with regards to Trident, then our country would be weaker & more vulnerable to attacks just like these.[/QUOTE

Perhaps you could explain what is the relevance of Trident to this incident.
 
Perhaps you could explain what is the relevance of Trident to this incident.

No problem.

I find it intriguing that the man who is currently receiving criticism (including from his own party), for appearing to drag his feet in the condemnation of Russia's actions, is also the same man who wants to completely eradicate our nuclear defence system.

So, Russian spy working for the British, is likely poisoned by The Russians, but an MP who wants to remove Britains nuclear deterrent, also doesn't want to draw attention to Russia, for their perceived crimes. The entire series of events wouldn't look out of place, in a James Bond plot.
 
No problem.

I find it intriguing that the man who is currently receiving criticism (including from his own party), for appearing to drag his feet in the condemnation of Russia's actions, is also the same man who wants to completely eradicate our nuclear defence system.

So, Russian spy working for the British, is likely poisoned by The Russians, but an MP who wants to remove Britains nuclear deterrent, also doesn't want to draw attention to Russia, for their perceived crimes. The entire series of events wouldn't look out of place, in a James Bond plot.

You said 'our country would be weaker and more vulnerable to attacks like these' if we get rid of Trident. But having Trident didn't stop this 'attack'. Where's the logic?
 
Also, let's not forget that if Corbyn actually ascends into power, and gets his own way with regards to Trident, then our country would be weaker & more vulnerable to attacks just like these.
the reality is that Trident didn't stop this attack and that the government slashed £129 from the MOD department that deal with chemical weapons - partly because they spend a disproportionate amount of the defence budget on Trident.
 
The effect will be much much bigger and wider than that; do not doubt that there would be a huge loss of trust/sharing from our core, central allies regards UK security and defence if JC ever got in No.10
I'd suggest the opposite - getting rid of this unstable Conservative government would make the world feel we were more trustworthy.
I assume everyone is aware of the £800k of Russian donations to the Conservative party - Boris Johnson admitted a meeting in exchange for £160k donation on TV today. This kind of thing doesn't just register with the left, such news goes worldwide.

Washington Post:
"The Russian government treats Britain with disdain because the Russian government thinks it has bought the British elite"

What I found even more concerning than that is that we sell weapons grade nuclear products to the Russians. May was asked about this in Parliament and asked if we will stop these sales as the most obvious sanction - and May totally ignored the question.

So we all kick Corbyn for asking for confirmation that an attempted murder was actioned by Russia, but we don't mind the Conservatives accepting hundreds of thousands of donations from Russians, selling nuclear weapons to Russia, taking £129m from the MOD department that protects us from chemical attacks, and resisting attempts to stop Russian money laundering in the UK.
May gets off Scott free from all of this but is a hero for expelling some diplomats and stopping the Royals going to the World Cup.

The state of politics.
 
I'd suggest the opposite - getting rid of this unstable Conservative government would make the world feel we were more trustworthy.
I assume everyone is aware of the £800k of Russian donations to the Conservative party - Boris Johnson admitted a meeting in exchange for £160k donation on TV today. This kind of thing doesn't just register with the left, such news goes worldwide.

Washington Post:
"The Russian government treats Britain with disdain because the Russian government thinks it has bought the British elite"

What I found even more concerning than that is that we sell weapons grade nuclear products to the Russians. May was asked about this in Parliament and asked if we will stop these sales as the most obvious sanction - and May totally ignored the question.

So we all kick Corbyn for asking for confirmation that an attempted murder was actioned by Russia, but we don't mind the Conservatives accepting hundreds of thousands of donations from Russians, selling nuclear weapons to Russia, taking £129m from the MOD department that protects us from chemical attacks, and resisting attempts to stop Russian money laundering in the UK.
May gets off Scott free from all of this but is a hero for expelling some diplomats and stopping the Royals going to the World Cup.

The state of politics.

Why do you hold such an unwavering faith in Corbyn? Serious question, I’m intrigued.
 
Back
Top