Russian spy attempted murder - what should the UK do?

BBC QT:
Dimbleby to Grayling. ”Why do they (the Russians) want to give the Conservative part money? What do they get back?”
No reply.

Better not let Johnson take it. He will not remember what he has done with it.

"But the Foreign Secretary sounded much less sure about the economic reprisals Russia would face. He repeated the No.10 line yesterday that police action in tracking criminal finances were operational matters, but sounded confused over what ministers were doing. “We will go after the money,” he said, before changing that to “we are going after the money”. He said “work is underway” to use ‘unexplained wealth orders’ against individuals. Yet he then said on plans to freeze assets, “we are launching steps which have been underway for some time”. Either you launch them, or they have been underway. Which is it?"

From Huffpost.

"Johnson said “we are sending a sample” of the nerve agent to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, insisting it was Russia not Britain who had failed to comply with international treaties on such incidents."

I wonder who has offered to take it.

That's what I thought, Grandad. The word incident is usually taken very seriously.

Quote[ durhamjen 15/03/18 @20:04

For those who think the word incident isn't strong enough, 318 incidents mentioned here. ]End quote

Just to lift a very serious thread somewhat, I would like to add to the durhamjen post above in regard to the use of the word incident (I have not included the link). With that I felt the Introduction of an adage that has been used in Industrial Safety circles for very many years would be helpful.

The above adage states " there is no such thing as an accident, somebody, somewhere is always responsible". In that, it is always a good saying to remember the next time you or someone else hits the car. (LOL)

However, bearing the above in mind, the word "incident" is very widely used in industrial safety to describe many happenings no matter how serious they are. The word is especially widely used in court reports when laying out text on even the most serious occurrences

trisher, NATO has now come out in full support of the British Government on seeing all the evidence put forward to them. The UK has now put forward that same evidence to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons, therefore we shall have to wait to find if that organisation concludes the same.

Grandad1943 Trisher, many of us condemned the Blair government prior to it taking this country to war in Iraq
Well I didn't.
But I have condemned this government. It has made the most u-turns of any government ever, it relies on the support of a reactionary party with policies from the stone age as it desperately hangs on to power.
At the time it was published most people believed the dodgy dossier, just as now people believe that the Russian government is behind the nerve gas. It's just a tad too convenient for me.

Only fools rush in lemongrove or so they say,

The man sits on the fence so often that it’s a wonder he doesn’t have splinters in his derriere.

Is that from the article "The stand off with Russia has set the Labour party clock back to spring 2017. Corbyn's stance could yet turn out to be insufficiently well-hedged." GGMk2?

To be fair, at least the NS acknowledges that Corbyn's always trying to hedge his position.

For those who think the word incident isn't strong enough, 318 incidents mentioned here.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/saudi-arabia-yemen-war-latest-war-crimes-international-law-cases-uk-government-aware-a8100381.html

From an article in the New Statesman:

While Jeremy Corbyn is not quite a founding shareholder as far as scepticism of foreign policy adventures go he certainly got in early as far as buying stock went, and its electoral value may be some way short of its peak. And as far as Theresa May goes, the expectation that she will "look strong" as a result does hinge rather on some kind of victory emerging from the stand-off with Vladimir Putin, which seems fairly unlikely, to put it mildly. If the United Kingdom's austerity-stretched defences and threadbare alliances are left exposed - and don't rule out the possibility that the unity among Nato and the EU will not last very long - then again, there is a political benefit to Corbyn, too.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/organisation-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-87th-executive-council-session-statement-on-the-salisbury-incident

Corbyn said this morning it was Russia

That's changed now Fennel. He issued a different statement today, unquestionable support.

I saw a headline on The Times front page this afternoon - Macron seems to agree with Corbyn's stance.
ie proof needed.
I can't find a link.

I don't think anyone has said they're not passing samples to that organisation mostlyharmless. I don't think there's a duty on the govt to provide a running commentary on everything they're doing - I'd be worried if they did. Also, Russia is a member, so anything handed to them would be handing it to the Russians anyway.

Shouldn’t the UK be giving the sample to the “Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons” definitely not give Russia the sample!
I believe Corbyn asked for this protocol to be followed the other day in Parliament.

The Salisbury attack was very much a " near act of war" against the United Kingdom. In the foregoing, had Russia just wished to murder an ex agent, then to use someone with a gun or similar would have been much more straightforward and effective. Putin and those that surround him wished to make a statement of their power and following that, Russia's immunity from any reciprocal action following their "assault" on Britain.

Putin had every reason to believe that the above immunity would be the case as Russia has "got away" with the downing of an airliner over the Ukraine, the invasion of Crimea and destabilising of former Soviet bloc countries surrounding the Russian Federation. Therefore, a further demonstration of Russia's resurgence of power it was felt (I believe) could be carried out against a somewhat isolated United Kingdom.

In the above, the Russian Government has misjudged the support that Britain has received from NATO allies doubtless after the UK shared all the close security information in regard to this attack with those allies. Why has not the UK government given Russia a sample of the nerve agent recovered from the scene as they demand, then obviously for the same security reasons.

The nerve agent used was designed to be undetectable and in that battlefield medical teams and others treating those affected by the agent would not know what they were dealing with and therefore how to treat. Therefore, any nerve agent recovered from the scene may also show evidence of how successful detection was carried out. In that, to supply a sample of the recovered agent to the Russia for analysis may also give them information on how it was detected.

The Russian government denial today (15/03/18) that they never ever developed this nerve agent only gives credence to the above. In that, several years ago two scientists who worked to bring forward this nerve agent defected to the United States and gave information on this agent that could only have been gained by someone working deep within its development.

I see Gavin Williamson is being very diplomatic as Defence Secretary. ”Frankly, Russia should just go away and shut up”.
But then he did accept £30,000 for a dinner with a crony of Putin.

Would it be over dramatic if another few people had been affected, two, three, ten?It could well have happened.
Russia felt safe enough to do this act and to get away with it.
No country could simply sit back and take it.

You really think this was a direct unprovoked attack on the UK grandad? I see it more as another example of an assassination attempt on a Russian “traitor”.
Unfortunately this lethal nerve gas also seriously harmed his daughter and a policeman. It could have affected far more people in Salisbury. But I don’t see it as an attack on UK sovereignty - that seems over dramatic.
Escalating us into a new Cold War is playing a dangerous game, although it might well suit Theresa May to distract the electorate and the different wings of the Tory party from the Brexit negotiations debacle.

has provided the full evidence and security information that it holds to our closest allies

Have they? Where did you find that detail Grandad?

Quote[ trisher. 15/03/18. @11:40am

I am afraid I am very wary of any statement made by any governmet that accuses another country of something. I seem to remember a "dodgy dossier" that took us into an unjust war. That involved chemical weapons as well - imaginary ones.] End Quote

Trisher, many of us condemned the Blair government prior to it taking this country to war in Iraqi. However, that was in response to this country taking aggressive action against another nation in regard to "questionable evidence and reasoning".

However, it has to be stated that the Salisbury attack is totally different from any comparisons made to the Iraqi war. In the foregoing on this occasion it is Britain that has come under direct unprovoked attack from another country without any provocation whatsoever or given any justifiable reasoning for such an attack to take place.

It is also noteworthy that as the Government has provided the full evidence and security information that it holds to our closest allies, they have all come out in absolute support of Britain's analasist, position and the action this government has taken.

Now, in the office today, so better finish this coffee and get back to work (LOL)

... and I would say we would all be right to take that view trisher. We do not need to rush to action. A marker has been put down now we need to know more and we need facts not fiction.