Catte, featured, latest, Skripal case

Why did UK court say “limited evidence” Skripals have relatives while cousin interviewed in UK media?

Why did the UK Home Office make no attempt to contact the Skripals’ relatives in Russia? Why does High Court judgment imply they may not even exist when they have appeared on UK TV? More bizarreness in this already very bizarre case

Viktoria Skripal, Sergey’s niece, interviewed by the BBC March 28 2018

The Skripal case has been a strange one, even by current standards. The persistent lack of basic information that extends way beyond anything that could seem to be justified by security considerations. The conflicting accounts, the unprecedented government and media hysteria, the complete rejection of due process, and the demands for international reprisals against a sovereign country based on absurdly scant and inadequate evidence continue to be as baffling as they are dangerous.

We’ve already covered the absence of evidence and the various lies and/or misconceptions or confusions on the part of the UK government, including some of the further puzzles, raised by the High Court judgment made by Mr Justice Williams on March 22, about how much it currently knows about the alleged “nerve agent”

But there are other glaring oddnesses in Williams’ Judgment as well.

One, discussed today by James O’Neill, is the contradiction between Russia’s claims to have tried to make contact with the Skripals through formal channels and having been denied or evaded by the UK, and the UK claim to have received no such requests.

Another, related to the above, is the question of the Skripals’ relatives in Russia. This is what the Judgment says about this:

“…Neither Mr Skripal nor Ms Skripal appear to have relatives in the UK although they appear to have some relatives in Russia. The SSHD have not sought to make contact with them. Discussions have taken place with the OPCW TS about precisely what enquiries they wish to undertake. In summary the main issues are


“…Given the absence of any contact having been made with the NHS Trust by any family member, the absence of any evidence of any family in the UK and the limited evidence as to the possible existence of family members in Russia I accept that it is neither practicable nor appropriate in the special context of this case to consult with any relatives of Mr Skripal or Ms Skripal who might fall into the category identified in s.4(7)(b) of the Act.

Firstly, these statements seem to contradict each other and themselves. Do the Skripals “appear” to have relatives in Russia, or is evidence for this so “limited” it can be safely ignored? How can such a basic question be subject to such misty uncertainty?

But odder than that is the fact these allegedly theoretical and possibly non-existent or distant relatives consist of at least one niece/cousin and a mother/grandmother. Second and first degree relatives respectively.

And one of them has been interviewed by at least two different UK news outlets.

Viktoria Skripal, allegedly niece of Sergey and cousin to Yulia was interviewed by the Sun on March 14, one week before the court judgment, and again by the BBC today.

These interviews suggest this particular relative is pretty real, and not very hard to locate. If the Sun could find her on March 14, it’s hard to see how she could still be a mere thought experiment and “limited” theory for the Home Office eight days later.

So, since the implication in the judgment that these (very close) relatives are quasi hypothetical is obviously untrue, why has the Home Secretary (SSHD) not “sought to make contact with” the Skripals’ mother/grandmother and niece/cousin?

Is it because they don’t “fall into the category identified in s.4(7)(b) of the Act”

No. The “Act” being referred to is the 2005 Mental Capacity Act. S.4(7)(b) stipulates that before determining what is in an incapacitated person’s “best interests”, the person ruling (in this case Mr Justice Williams) must:

take into account, if it is practicable and appropriate to consult them, the views of anyone engaged in caring for the person or interested in his welfare


Had Mr Justice Williams not been informed that one of these relatives was so “practicable” to consult she’d recently been featured in the Murdoch press? Surely,if he knew how easy to locate they were, his judgment would have reflected the assumption a mother/grandmother,niece/cousin would at very least be “interested” in the “welfare” of Yulia and Sergey?

Do such close and easily contactable relatives really warrant being passed over simply because of “the absence of any contact having been made with the NHS Trust by any member of the family”?

I mean look, these people are in Russia. It’s possible – shocking – they don’t speak English. It’s possible they aren’t clear how to get in contact directly with a rural hospital in Wiltshire. It’s possible they tried but failed.

Would it hurt someone at the Home Office to get on the phone and check things out before assuming they just don’t care and taking the matter to court?

What’s more, far from being indifferent, Viktoria tells her interviewer she is worried about her uncle and cousin and is anxious to get information:

“I would just like to know how [Yulia and Sergey] are. Where they are. “

“If you were offered the chance to go the the UK would you go?”

“Yes, yes”

If this is the case, can we take it as pretty unlikely the Skripals have really made no attempt to contact the UK about their family members?

And, if you look at the wording again:

Given the absence of any contact having been made with the NHS Trust by any family member

It doesn’t actually say no contact has been made does it? It says no contact has been made with the NHS trust. This leaves the undeclared possibility there has been contact made by the Skripals with other departments of the UK state. This would broadly dovetail with claims made by the Russian foreign ministry, which, until at least March 19, has maintained its attempts to gain access to or information about the Skripals have been stonewalled.

If the Skripals have tried to gain information, either directly or through their embassy or consulate, why aren’t they being given any? Why aren’t they being consulted about the medical interventions being performed? Why has Viktoria been told so little since the poisoning, that she tells the BBC she still holds out a fanciful hope the victims may not even be Julia and Sergey?

Altogether, it seems this part of the official narrative is as confused and as hard to reconcile with reality as the clearly unwarranted claims about “novichoks.”

NOTE: The Guardian’s version of the BBC interview with Viktoria is shockingly deceptive. It omits all mention of the main point of the interview – that Viktoria is desperate for information and has received none – and contrives through this omission, and its headline (“Sergey and Yulia Skripal have slim chance of survival says niece”) to give the absolutely opposite impression – that Viktoria has been well informed, may even have seen her relatives and is predicting their small chance of survival from first hand observation. Even in the Guardian’s recent history of poor ethical choices and lies by omission, this is egregious in the extreme.


  1. JJA says

    Interesting addition to the timeline of the entire Skripal story:

    The U.S. State Department says that its campaign to use the Skripal incident as a tool against Russia started on March 6, only two days after the incident and six full days before the British government raised accusations against Russia.

    In her press briefing on March 27 the U.S. State Department spokeswomen Heather Nauert talked about the coordinated ousting of Russian diplomats by some “western” countries:

    "Our Deputy Secretary Sullivan, Assistant Secretary Wess Mitchell, and many others in the building across the interagency process have worked tirelessly over the past three weeks to achieve this unprecedented level of cooperation and also coordination. The end result – 151 Russian intelligence personnel sent home to Moscow – is a testimony of how seriously the world takes Russia’s ongoing global campaign to undermine international peace and stability, to threaten the sovereignty and security of countries worldwide, and to subvert and discredit Western institutions."

    The above quote is from Nauert’s prepared remarks, not the more free wheeling Q&A section.

    The British prime minister made her allegations against Russia only on March 12:

    "It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia.
    This is part of a group of nerve agents known as 'Novichok'."

    When you are lying, it is incredibly difficult to remain consist in keeping lies going.

  2. Den Lille Abe says

    So the UK is already going full US. And it is not really out of the EU yet.
    Good riddance…

  3. FobosDeimos says

    Now she’s conscious and talking! Operation Easter Miracle is at full speed. Will she talk freely with attorneys of her onw choosing? with reporters? with Russian consular agents? Or will she sign a pre-digested letter blaming Putin, no cross examination allowed? I hope again that she is able to say what she really knows and thinks, one way or the other.

    Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend could be called back in for an adapted performance of Tommy (Yulia). The parts where he/she recovers speech, sight and hearing.

    • Jen says

      Takes about 25 days for the necessary isolation, sedation and sensory deprivation to wipe the brain cells clean of past memories and opinions, and to install new ones by hypnotic suggestion, I see. MK ULTRA-styled techniques and methods must have improved greatly since the original experiments.

      If people really want to know my opinion, I think what the Skripals really had was food poisoning.

      • Styopa says

        I don’t know about that, but one of the interesting points to emerge from the High Court judgment was that the Skripals’ lack of capacity was considered on the evidence to arise, at least to a significant degree, from the effects of sedation as well as those of any nerve agent they may have been in contact with.

  4. Hopefully Yulia Skripal will recover and be able to tell all she knows. I sincerely hope so.

    However if she does not and somehow cannot be repatriated to Russia with a full and open joint investigation between Britain and Russia then there will be no progress with this story.

    I believe this is a fabricated event and narrative as there are too many incongruous elements to it. However I hope I am proved wrong and Yulia’s recovery is real and that her revelations are properly open and transparent.

    So far I have seen none of this from the British authorities.

  5. Jonj says

    Will the FSB be permitted access to their foreign national Russian passport holder for their investigation into this terrorist act against these citizens?
    Could the daughter wish to be treated medically back in Russia or at the other extreme “wish” to claim asylum in UK which of course continues the Russian bogeyman meme? What Russian law could be invoked for her return to Russia… .?

  6. Mark Gobell says

    According to Dr Christine Blanshard, Medical Director for Salisbury District Hospital, Yulia Skripal is reportedly, “improving rapidly” and is no longer “critically ill” …

    Tomorrow is Good Friday.

    Maybe she will be fully resurrected on Sunday …


    • FobosDeimos says

      Exactly. Yesterday she was practically ready to be plugged-off from life support. Today she’s doing fine. Maybe by Monday she will follow DS Bailey’ s footsteps and write a letter. Jokes aside let us hope that she is allowed to live an that she is able to tell everything she knows. Meanwhile I’m counting the days until the OPCW report comes out and the Tories are shown the door by the British people.

      • Well I admire your optimism, but May is having her Falklands moment and nothing will be allowed to spoil it, by either The Establishment or the Blairite Labour “Kamikaze Group” (thank you Aaron Bastani for telling us that’s what they revealingly call themselves!).

        Unless Corbyn grows a pair, of course, and expels them for gross insubordination. (Just how long did Luciana Berger spend trawling through his Twitter – or was it Facebook? – feed before finding that remark about the mural, IN 2012 FOR GOD’S SAKE!, that kicked off the latest anti-semitism whinge?).

        There’s no negotiating with cancer…

        • Mikalina says

          Do you think it has occurred to the Kamikaze Group that, in such a flight, the pilot also dies?

          Luciana Berger will have many little helpers – similar to those who helped parachute her into her MP seat after she lived at the home of Jane Kennedy, the then sitting MP and whose partner was the Labour official who ran the selection process.

        • Ian Gibson says

          It won’t have been very hard to find – the Jewish Chronicle ran the story in 2015. Curiously, at that time, it only felt the mural had ‘possible anti-semitic undertones’ and no-one else through the story was worth picking up… wonder what’s changed in two years…

      • Jennifer Hor says

        Or she might just say that her experience was … surreal.

    • Sergei must have received a higher dose – either that or he is refusing to sign a non-disclosure agreement and so must remain “critical but stable” pro tem. MI6 are said to be praying he will come round but are nevertheless making the necessary funeral arrangements just in case. Eat your heart out John Le Carré.

      More seriously I hope the poor man does make it.

  7. estaugh says

    As an appendix to the topic — —- Vote meddling going on here to.

  8. As others have implied, in any other circumstance, it wouldn’t have been too much of a surprise if an institution or individual had paid for relatives of the Skripals to visit the UK but I find the treatment of Ms Skripal to be even more bizarre. The only way to avoid diplomatic contact would be to immediately accuse the Russians of the crime. Subsequently this would have ruled out informing the Russians of any information surrounding the incident, which is what they have done. Her father probably is of no interest to the Russians, if he had been he wouldn’t have been living a normal life, quite openly for the last eight years in the UK. Ms Skripal being a Russian national should have resulted in the UK government informing relatives of the incident. If a close relative is seriously hurt in an accident, aren’t the next of kin informed as quickly as possible? How were they informed?
    Did the government ignore normal procedure in their haste to blame Russia? That is what it looks like from here. Were the human rights of the victims families deliberately ignored in order to smear the Russian government? Considering the seriousness with which the government attach to this crime, surely they would have been eager to get relatives here as quickly as possible, especially with the less than hopeful prognosis. The media weren’t shy with photos of a dying Litvinenko and yet the description of the Skripals actual condition has been vague and only weeks after the event are we told that there isn’t much hope of survival. All this is in total contrast to the very public demise of Litvinenko. Despite claims to the contrary from Theresa and Boris, there really are more questions than answers.

    • MICHAEL LEIGH says

      As I simply try to understand it, Col Skripal is a Russian national who choose to live, in the matter of an international exchange of prisoners, in the UK where the government has bestowed upon him all sorts of priveleges, monetary and or otherwise by the UK government, and which presumably includeds travel documentation to visit, his beloved Spain ( and of course that Nation which is the source of some his property and also his savings and worldly monetary wealth ) and, further the UK Government in granting him a right to abode in the UK has provided him with documentation to permanently to reside here-in ?

      But, whether that entitles the Russian retired Col Skripal, the same or similar rights as a British person, as also the American-born National, and long running fugitive from Russian justice, the Mr Bill Browder who also claims UK full citizenship in the Russian Courts ?

  9. mog says

    Corbyn is a racist.
    Momentum are a neofascist organisation.
    Russia is guilty.
    The Skripals have no relatives.
    There is no conspiracy.
    Everything is normal/ as on TV/ irrelevant.
    I am a typing orangutan.
    I can create matter simply by thinking things.
    Truth comes out of my washing machine.

    Rejoice everyone ! We are free from the confines of reality, nothing and everything is real or not real, is both absolutely important and completely trivial at the same time. Just remember to keep watching the show.

  10. MichaelK says

    Historically, the British ruling class have repeatedly shown that they are capable of great acts off daring and audacity. The willingness to take risks and gamble. I think it’s because the culture is so weighted in their favour in myriad ways, that they know they can probably get away with it, in contrast to ordinary people who are fighting an unfair uphill struggle with the odds stacked against them.

    This history and culture gives the ruling class immense advantages and their famous ‘confidence’ and swagger, their seemingly in-bred, heredity style and right to rule, their entitlement compared to the lower orders. They will always be supported by most of the dreadful middle class, who dream of the perfect bourgeois life and perhaps serving so well that they gain admission the ruling elite themselves.

    It’s true that if the crime is big enough no one will dare investigate it properly. Like the assassination of Kennedy and no one will really question it or the ‘pasty’ because the alternative explanation is so frightening that the consequences are bigger and worse than the initial crime itself. People don’t want to look at too much horror for too long. All this gives tremendous advantages to the ruling class criminals who rule over us seemingly for ever.

    • TakeThePowerBack says

      as Rage Against The Machine once said: “What’s it gonna take?!”

  11. P.E. Ace says

    From suitcase to front door: the change in the story (backward fitting?) does not seem to surprise main stream media.

    Nor does the elapsed time between exposure to the nerve agent and the collapse of the Skripals on that famous bench seem to surprise any MSM journalist. Novichoks are supposed to affect you imminently and not leave you time to visit a pub and a restaurant. But I’m not an expert.

    The statement that police put out yesterday evening does not explicitly say that the nerve agent found on the door of Skripal’s home is the same chemical that poisoned the Skripals. This is relevant in light of the letter the Salisbury hospital doctor published in The Times stating that no patient displayed symptoms of nerve agent attack.

    I could not help noticing that yesterday’s police statement left out the word “novichok”. Managing expectations?

    Authorities and media will no doubt complain about comments such as mine that I easily fall for conspiracy theories. My counter challenge to them would be twofold:
    First, government and police should use more precise language and more transparency. Statements using phrases such as “or related substance” to nerve agent and “or closely related” to novichok that Porton Down scientist used in the court of protection do not inspire trust. Deviating from OPCW procedures does not either.
    Second, story government and MSM are putting out there is a conspiracy theory.

    • Michelle says

      The really strange thing about the door theory is that you don’t usually have both people touch the street side of the door when they go out together – a friend and I went out from her house yesterday and I didn’t touch her door at all. Watch people leaving in pairs. It only takes one person to shut the door.

      How would an assassin know who was going to shut the door?

      • Nemo says

        These are Russian assassins. They are excellent.

      • handbesen says

        Good point! And the effect of the poison was delayed 8 hours?

  12. MichaelK says

    Put very simply. If a lie is big enough and repeated long enough, very few people will have the courage to deny it. Until the lie becomes the ”truth’ for all intents and purposes. It serves its’ purpose, to groom the public for more war, then it’s forgotten about. Until years or decades later the truth emerges and educated and sophisticated people smile that anyone could have ever believed such nonsense… witches? broomsticks? sabbats with Satan?… Please! As we move onwards to the next big-lie in the service of war.

  13. MichaelK says

    It’s very cunning and audacious, attempting to kill two Russians in Salisbury and the blaming the attack on Russia and framing them for it. Clearly when the UK State does something like this, or goes to war, this thing is like a small war or the start of a far bigger one; it’s incredibly difficult for any journalist working within the mainstream media, even if they were inclined to, to start questioning Downing Streets version of events. If one did, one would immediately be accused of ‘not loving one’s country’ and lack of patriotism and siding with the enemy. If the clues pointed to Downing Street involvement and not towards the Kremlin and one wrote about it, one’s career would be on the line. Even the thought that the UK security services might be behind the attack, because London gains so much, and sacrificing two Russians means nothing to them… is a form of heresy and tantamount to treason. So journalists don’t dare go anywhere near questioning the official narrative, even though it’s patently absurd and full of more holes than a Swiss cheese.

    To ask too many questions would be like questioning the honesty of the political class and the quality of the rest of the media, including the BBC and the Guardian, the voices of independent liberal reason. If the poiliticians are capable of lying about something like this (remember Iraq?) and murder, then surely that means we don’t live in a democracy anymore and the system of law has virtually collapsed, and that’s a very dangerous road to go down for any journalist without really strong evidence, or for anyone else, like Corbyn himself who understands the stakes and has been bullied and cowed into surrender. Just like the social democrats across Europe in 1914.

    • handbesen says

      I wonder if the UK government expected that so many people question their story. Are they regretting having been so incompetent in executing their plot?

  14. MichaelK says

    It’s a bit odd that it takes two people to shut a front door and thereby become contaminated by the handle or the knob. It doesn’t seem the most efficient way of delivering a deadly poison to me. It’s Winter after all and even though the Skripals are Russians, perhaps they’d choose to wear gloves that day, which would protect their hands from coming in contact with the poison.

    The speed with which Downing Street and the media ‘solved’ this affair, indicates to me that their was a surprising level of coordination between them, like the government was just waiting for this trap to spring and get their version of the narrative into the public domain long before the Russians could mount a serious defence. This too points to the source of the attack. The UK gains massively from the episode, whilst the Russians pay a heavy price. The Skripals were worth far more dead to Downing Street, than they could possibly be for Russia.

    • Nemo says

      Do Russians wear gloves at minus 3 Degree Celsius? Or is that summer for them?

  15. rtj1211 says

    Whilst the arguments are narrowly logical, here are a few more questions:

    1) Why did ‘Our Caring Sun’ not fly cousin Viktoria to England after liaising with the British Consulate to expedite visa documentation in a timely fashion? Ditto the BBC….both our Press/media are the last bastions in generous decency and charitable gestures….anyone would think it was just about ‘the story’, not about a human tragedy…
    2) Why has the Russian Press not highlighted that the UK authorities have refused Viktoria Skripal a visa?
    3) If Viktoria does not have the money to travel why did Russian Tv not organise a whip round to raise the cash in 24 hours?
    4) Given the humungous sums spent annually by the NHS on interpreters, presumably a lack of English on behalf of Viktoria Skripal should not presumably be a LOGISTICAL issue in terms of a telephone conversation?

    These address the two most logical reasons why Viktoria Skripal has not travelled: she cannot afford to go with interpreters; and the UK have refused to issue her with a visa.

  16. “A Plant mistaken for a Door” Is the most recent part of this perception managed false flag.

    Another turn in the story. We are expected to believe that a military grade nerve agent that affected no one else other than a mystery copper who has not been interviewed by anyone, has emerged on the door of the Skripals?

    Now if this potent poison was as dangerous and of a type claimed how many hours elapsed from the Skripals leaving home to when they collapsed into a stupor on a public bench in the Maltings shopping precinct? Several hours it appears. And how many days has it taken the specialist state security [as all this is not being handled by the police] to identify it 25?

    Again the Guardian leads on this story and accepts all the incongruous facts without question.

    All the evidence of the Skripal affair points to a cover-up of a manufactured event.

    • And with such a delay in taking effect, is it really plausible that it would have affected both victims at exactly the same time?

    • A. J. B says

      ‘All the evidence of the Skripal affair points to a cover-up of a manufactured event.’

      Or carelessly mixing up Monsanto products they’d got from the garden centre?

  17. Harry Law says

    The first thing a conscious person involved in an incident such as this would say in a hospital to a Doctor/Nurse or Barrister friend is, does my family know I am here, if not could you tell them I would like to see them, that’s elementary first principals for a conscious or unconscious patient. Why did the litigation “Friend” appointed by the Official Solicitor to represent the best interests of his client fail these first Principals? Note… A Barrister must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the lay client’s best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person (including any colleague, professional client or other intermediary or another barrister,

  18. Harry Law says

    Mr Vikram Sachdeva QC for the Official Solicitor representing the Skripals as a litigating friend, said that in this case at present it did not appear ‘practical or appropriate’ to seek the views of others who might be interested in the welfare of Mr Skripal [his mother perhaps] or Ms Skripal [perhaps a Fiance]
    Then at 17 hIgh Court iv) FF: Home Office
    Neither Mr Skripal nor Ms Skripal appear to have relatives in the UK although
    they appear to have some relatives in Russia. The SSHD have not sought to make contact with them.
    High Court . 27 The hospital has not been approached by anyone known to the patients to enquire of their welfare. The hospital know little about either patient or what they might have wished neither practicable nor appropriate in the special context of this case to consult with any relatives of Mr Skripal or Ms Skripal who might fall into the category identified in s.4(7)(b) of the Act
    What kind of a friend to the Skripals was Vikram Sachdeva QC who knowing about the evidence from the Home Dept and the Hospital does not attempt to contact the Skripals family or as section 4 [7] [b] of the Mental Capacity Act “Anyone engaged in caring for the person OR INTERESTED IN HIS WELFARE”. Obviously the Russian Embassy would be. From a purely moral point of view the failure of Mr Sachdeva QC to represent the Skripals best interests by failing to find relatives or to do his duty by informing the Russian Embassy as per 2005 MCA 4[7][b]. In my opinion Mr Sachdeve QC has failed in his duty both morally and legally to represent the best interests of Mr and Ms Skripal and should be reported to the Bar Council.

  19. FobosDeimos says

    What happened with Victoria Skripal’s alleged “confession” that it was Yulia’s future mother in law who put the toxic substance into a perfume that was given to Yulia? It was reported about 10 days ago that Victoria had pointed to this woman as the culprit, and that her motivatios was to avoid at all costs the marriage of her son to the daughter of a “traitor”. Did I dream that or was it all part of the propaganda war? Victoria does not say anything at all about the evil in-law trying to kill Yulia in her interview with the BBC.

    • She was said to have made such a claim, but we have no context for it and it’s not that relevant. Even relatives with odd theories have the right to be contacted and consulted.

    • FobosDeimos says

      I noticed that Victoria does make that claim in her interview with The Sun, but that was two weeks ago. Now she seems to have changed her mind with the BBC, or at least to a point where she no longer considered it necessary to expand on her earlier speculation.

      • Jen says

        There’s always the possibility that The Sun or a translator has misinterpreted what Viktoria Skripal said originally or someone is putting words into her mouth.

  20. God it’s horrendous. I’ve never felt HMG to be particularly trustworthy but this melodrama wrapped inside an enigma etc., has to be the limit.

    On one level the efficiency is breathtaking. To get all the MSM (literally – all of them) on side in short order
    puts to rest any lingering idea of a free press.

    The only positive is that people will surely be looking for alternative news on OFF-G and elsewhere. That’s assuming such “Fake News” sites will be allowed to exist for much longer

  21. Oh, and by the way, RT (one of the few reliable news sources in the world) just reported the breaking news that Scotland Yard said the Skripals came in contact with their poison at home, and it would take Scotland Yard several months for a full investigation.

    • FobosDeimos says

      Yes, and now the BBC also says that the Skripals first came into contact with the poison/agent at their home’s front door. So 24 days later it is no longer the car or Yulia’s luggage. It’s their own front door. What else needs to happen to bring this whole thing to the level of a Class B movie?

    • Tom Welsh says

      If they were poisoned at home, they must then have gone to Salisbury town centre, had lunch and drinks, and walked to the park bench… all after being poisoned!

      That absolutely rules out a nerve agent, surely.

      • FobosDeimos says

        Exactly, especially when they keep on saying that it was a very powerful nerve agent, xxx times more potent than VX.

      • Slug Head says

        Not if it doesn’t suit Maybots agenda!

      • mog says

        It was ‘significant poisoning’ (Davies).
        Food poisoning?
        Fentanyl tablets?

    • It has been known for over three weeks that they had been poisoned at home. It was the only possible place it could have happened – why did it take so long to make an official statement?

  22. Kaiama says

    They cannot let the relatives get involved because then the UK would lose control of the information flow. The small matter of getting a visaand proving family ties will also stand in the way.

    • I think the bigger problem for the establishment, if they let the relatives have contact with Sergei and Yulia Skripal, is that their true health status would presumably become evident and what really happened might be revealed. Easier just to claim ignorance of any relatives.

      • Kaiama says

        My point precisely. NHA tells relative, relative tells Russian Embassy. RussianEmbassyadvise her on questionsto ask. Get answers. Then give interviews to international press. Print outside the UK.Claim UK suppressing information.

  23. Stu says

    A different topic but obviously connected.

    Yesterday’s Guardian editorial on surveillance said this… “However the blame is distributed, the central fact remains that these private companies have been able to embark on a programme of data collection that no government outside China has been able to undertake”

    Yet in 2013 the Guardian reported this….

    “GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world’s communications
    Exclusive: British spy agency collects and stores vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook posts, internet histories and calls, and shares them with NSA, latest documents from Edward Snowden reveal”

    Here we have a newspaper abandoning not the only the truth but it’s own reporting. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is obviously intended to push towards a second referendum on Brexit. However it has become clear that the real story is SCL which is a company set up to allow to security services and billionaires to collaborate to subvert elections around the world and have graduated from Eastern Europe and Africa to the USA and UK. This aspect of the story is being widely ignored particularly by the BBC.

    We have heard non stop that Russia “hacked” the 2016 Presidential election. Now it has been revealed that the company who had the most influence is ran by old Etonians, “retired” MI6 agents and even Royals yet no one is asking questions of the UK state.

    • Kavy says

      Very well written, Stu

      Everyone should read this and see what a cesspit of psychopaths the British ruling elite are. Members of the Royal Family, the military, the gentry, members of the Tory Party, the military- industrial complex, all screwing the tax payer by inventing fake enemies. This is the British Deep State with its ties to the US. ‘War is a Racket’.

      SCL – a Very British Coup

      Liam O Hare on the deep connections between Cambridge Analytica’s parent company Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group) and the Conservative Party and military establishment, ‘Board members include an array of Lords, Tory donors, ex-British army officers and defense contractors. This is scandal that cuts to the heart of the British establishment.’

      • Craig Murray wrote an informative and interesting profile of SCL and its connections to CA and the British Govt on his Twitter blog on 22 March, entitled “The Deep State Breaks Surface”. He names a number of Board members and alludes to some of their professional interests. It goes some way to explaining why the Govt is keeping relatively quiet about the CA /Facebook scandal.

  24. Any attempt by Skripal relatives living in Russia to obtain medical information from U.K. officials on Sergei and Yulia is “of a type” developed by families and loved ones since time began. There is no other “plausible explanation”.

Comments are closed.