Here we go again.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/can- ... -that-bad/

_________________

https://www.promiseskept.com/#
https://twitter.com/POTUS?lang=en
https://twitter.com/POTUS/following?lang=en

Breaking news is that 4 Russians again from the GRU have been caught red handed attempting to infiltrate the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons in The Hague .

The OPCW had been probing the Salisbury chemical attack carried out by Russians.

_________________
You Are What You Think.....
Not What You Think You Are.....

They've been caught with their pants down due to a brilliant co-ordinated joint operation, between the British and the Dutch - and STILL the Kremlin denies it!

_________________
Protestors are much more violently opposed to fur than they are to leather. Why? Because it's much easier to hassle rich women than bikers.

Of course they deny it. No way they could admit it.

Still no proof though is there?

_________________
Parliament is supposed to be serious. It's not a place for jingoistic cheering. Jeremy Corbyn

Evidence?
There is plenty in a car's boot.

_________________
"Anyone who thinks that the economy of a nation that once led the largest empire in history will be suddenly laid to ruin upon leaving the EU is greatly mistaken". Winston Peters

We would too.

_________________
"Anyone who thinks that the economy of a nation that once led the largest empire in history will be suddenly laid to ruin upon leaving the EU is greatly mistaken". Winston Peters

What more proof is needed? The evidence is mounting every day, especially with highly decorated Colonel Chepiga of the GRU being proved to be one of the Salisbury pair - who left novichoc footprints all over the place, including their cheap London hotel. These other four were nabbed in the act, at The Hague. Do you seriously imagine, that they would be found not guilty, if all this evidence was presented to a court in a NATO country? Preferably Britain, in the case of the two poisoners of the Skripals.

_________________
Protestors are much more violently opposed to fur than they are to leather. Why? Because it's much easier to hassle rich women than bikers.

What for you, would constitute "proof".

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the normal legal criteria, Both Salisbury and the Hague achieve that requirement.

_________________
You Are What You Think.....
Not What You Think You Are.....

Evidence of a determined and professional state sponsored hacking attempt, not a nerve agent attack.

There are still no forensics.

Beyond a reasonable doubt"

Exactly so.

The very fact that this debate is going on shows there is "reasonable doubt".

I cannot be the only one who finds the evidence wanting. I am not even the only one on this forum!

It would not be hard for a decent defence lawyer to ensure that any impanelled jury has at least half its number composed of people like me.

Forget the hype, the passion, the indignation, let's step back and study the "evidence".

Beyond reasonable doubt?

A long way off that.

It's the quickness of the 'and deceives the eye.
Smoke and mirrors fool Joe Public all the while.

_________________
Parliament is supposed to be serious. It's not a place for jingoistic cheering. Jeremy Corbyn

No doubt we would - in an operation such as this. But surely even worse is the assassination and attempted assassination of their own citizens i.e. Litvinenko and the Skripals, on British soil. Now there are those that argue that we should have done exactly the same in the cases of Burgess, McClean and Philby - but we didn't. In fact the only assassination that I can think of, for which we were responsible, was that of Reinhard Heydrich, in Prague. This led to the village of Lidice being wiped off the map and the deaths and incarceration in concentration camps of thousands of innocents - not a good idea at all!

_________________
Protestors are much more violently opposed to fur than they are to leather. Why? Because it's much easier to hassle rich women than bikers.

I note those who think there is not enough evidence to take to court, are reluctant to say what else would satisfy them.

In the real world , UK prosecutors are more than happy to proceed, as indeed their Dutch counterparts would be if they decided there was any merit to be gained from involving the courts.

_________________
You Are What You Think.....
Not What You Think You Are.....

I note those who think there is not enough evidence to take to court, are reluctant to say what else would satisfy them.

Can't speak for others, but I'm N
not reluctant at all. I have always said I would like to see some forensics.

By their I mean direct links.

Fingerprints, DNA, fibres, properly surveillance footage, like the Dutch produced, not grainy b&w grainy traffic (including pedestrian traffic) cctv, contamination (two guys as allegedly clumsy as this would have found it difficult to contaminate so much stuff but not themselves).

A half decent QC could probably convince a judge there was no case to answer, long before it ever got to a jury. In fact, he/she could provably argue for a non-jury trial on the grounds of bias due to widespread publicity.

In the real world we all know that Russia did it, but that innocent until proved otherwise is still paramount, whether a sovereign state or a rough sleeping shoplifter.