Skripal case: Russia counter-attacks; Britain responds by tightening access to Yulia Skripa

by Alexander Mercouris

Britain struggles to respond to Russia’s diplomatic counter-offensive, stonewalls all Russian attempts to gain access to Yulia Skripal


If during the first three weeks of the Skripal crisis it was the British who made the running, over the last two weeks the initiative has slowly shifted to the Russians.
As is often the way, the Russians – caught by surprise by a crisis that seemed to come out of nowhere – initially responded reactively.
However as the weeks have passed they have gradually found their footing, and are now starting to score points.
By contrast it is the British – who apparently assumed that following the diplomatic expulsions the crisis would subside – who now look increasingly on the blackfoot as, contrary to their expectations, the Russians refuse to let the matter rest.
The result has been bitter recriminations in the British media – with much of the blame being placed on Boris Johnson – a flood of not always very consistent or convincing leaks to the media trying to bolster the British case, and ever more shrill denunciations of the supposedly ‘useful idiots’ who express doubts about it.
With hindsight the Russians took one step in the early days of the crisis which has paid handsome dividends.
This was their insistence – made as early as the UN Security Council session of 14th March 2018 – that Britain follow the procedures of the Chemical Weapons Convention and obtain confirmation from the OPCW of the nature of the poison used in the attack.
The Russians followed this up by convening a meeting of the OPCW’s executive committee on 4th April 2018 at which they presented a resolution which jointly sponsored by Russia, China and Iran for an international investigation of the incident, with law enforcement agencies from Britain and Russia both involved in the investigation.
This is by no means an absurd or outlandish proposal. On the contrary since Yulia Skripal is a Russian citizen it is precisely what should have happened.
However – as the Russians of course know – the OPCW has no jurisdiction to impose an international investigation of a crime which has happened in a sovereign state. That is a matter solely within the jurisdiction of that state, and the OPCW – which is not an investigative body – has no authority to order it. The only international institution which does is the UN Security Council.
There was no possibility therefore of the Russian-Chinese-Iranian proposal being adopted, or of being put into effect if it was adopted, and the Russians – and the Chinese and the Iranians – must have known this when they proposed it.
However the Russian insistence that the OPCW become involved and verify the British claim that the poison used in the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal was a Novichok, together with the Russians’ call for an international investigation of the incident, and the lists of questions with which in advance of the OPCW executive council session the Russians bombarded the OPCW, the British, and the French – whose experts the British consulted to verify the identity of the poison – set the scene for the admission by Gary Aitkenhead, Porton Down’s chief executive, that contrary to British Foreign Office claims Porton Down has not been able to confirm that the chemical which poisoned Sergey and Yulia Skripal was made in Russia.
Ever since then, because British diplomats – not just Boris Johnson – have for weeks been lying about this, the British have been on the defensive.
As it happens the OPCW executive council session, like the UN Security Council session which Russia called shortly after, also demonstrated another important fact.
This is that the Skripal crisis is an East-West confrontation – the West versus the Eurasian powers led by Russia and China – and not a confrontation between a ‘united world community’ and an ‘isolated Russia’, as British and other Western commentators like to claim.
It seems that all the sixteen states who at the OPCW executive council session voted against the Russian-Chinese-Iranian proposal for an international investigation of the incident are members of the Western alliance, whilst the six countries which voted for the proposal are all Eurasian states. Importantly all seventeen of the states which chose to abstain in the voting appear to have been non-aligned states.
The pattern repeated itself at the subsequent UN Security Council meeting on the following day, 5th April 2018.
Not only were Western ambassadors the only ambassadors pointing fingers at Russia during the meeting, but those non-aligned non-Western ambassadors who chose to speak during the meeting not only did not point fingers at Russia but appeared if anything to favour the Russian position: that the mysteries of the Skripal case be solved internationally by way of cooperation between Britain and Russia.
The comments of the ambassador of Equatorial Guinea – no ally of Russia – as summarised by the United Nations Press Office, may serve as a typical example

ANATOLIO NDONG MBA (Equatorial Guinea) expressed hope that current investigations would both shed light on the facts and be fair and commensurate with relevant international norms and procedures. He reiterated a desire that, as permanent members of the Council, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom would set an example to the international community on the peaceful resolution of disputes. At a pivotal moment when international institutions were under constant attack, it was important the two members used their maturity and international political experience to handle the situation prudently, he said, hoping the diplomatic crisis that had broken out would soon be defused.

If Gary Aitkenhead’s admission that Porton Down cannot confirm that the chemical agent used in the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal was Russian made has been a public relations disaster for the British, the British authorities’ treatment of Sergey and Yulia Skripal looks increasingly like a public relations disaster waiting to happen.
The British authorities have maintained the tightest possible security around Sergey and Yulia Skripal. No photographs of them have been released and nor has any information been provided about the sort of treatment they are receiving. So far as is known they have been seen by no visitors. Access to them is tightly controlled.
The recent High Court Judgment permitting blood samples to be taken from Sergey and Yulia Skripal so that they could be passed on to the OPCW revealed that the British authorities had previously taken blood samples from Sergey and Yulia Skripal, which were passed on to Porton Down.

(2) …….on 14 and 16 March 2018 the UK government issued a formal invitation to the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to send a team of experts to the United Kingdom ‘to assist in the technical evaluation of unscheduled chemicals in accordance with Article VIII 38(e).’ This in effect is to independently verify the analysis carried out by Porton Down. In order to conduct their enquiries the OPCW wish to
i) Collect fresh blood samples from Mr and Ms Skripal to
a) Undertake their own analysis in relation to evidence of nerve agents,
b) conduct DNA analysis to confirm the samples originally tested by Porton Down are from Mr and Ms Skripal,
ii) Analyse the medical records of Mr and Ms Skripal setting out their treatment since 4 March 2018,
iii) Re-test the samples already analysed by Porton Down.
(3) Because Mr Skripal and Ms Skripal are unconscious and neither are in a position to consent to the taking of further blood samples for these purposes or to the disclosure of their medical records Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust have quite properly confirmed to the UK Government that a court order would be required to authorise (a) and (b) above.
(bold italics added)

There is no hint here of any previous permission being obtained from the High Court to take these blood samples. This is so, even though Mr. Justice Williams clearly says in his Judgment that such permission should be obtained

(3) Because Mr Skripal and Ms Skripal are unconscious and neither are in a position to consent to the taking of further blood samples for these purposes or to the disclosure of their medical records Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust have quite properly confirmed to the UK Government that a court order would be required to authorise (a) and (b) above
(4) Thus the Secretary of State has applied to this court for personal welfare orders in respect of Mr and Ms Skripal under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 seeking determinations that it is lawful for the NHS Trust to take a blood sample for provision to the OPCW and to disclose the relevant medical records to the OPCW and for the blood samples taken from Mr and Ms Skripal to be subjected to testing by the OPCW.
(bold italics added)

Was permission obtained from the High Court before the blood samples sent to Porton Down were taken from Sergey and Yulia Skripal?
If not, then was the taking of the earlier blood samples unlawful, perhaps an assault, which is a criminal offence?
If permission was obtained why has the High Court’s Judgment granting this permission not been made public? What made it different from the Judgment of Mr. Justice Williams, which was made public?
Or could it be that no permission was needed because at the time when the blood samples were taken Sergey and Yulia Skripal were conscious and could therefore give their consent to have the samples taken?
Or might it be that it was judged at the time that the taking of the blood samples did not require the High Court’s permission because it was a necessary part of the medical treatment with which Sergey and Yulia Skripal were being provided? If so why is nothing said about this in Mr. Justice Williams’s Judgment?
Speaking as someone who has read many court Judgments, I strongly suspect that no previous permission was obtained from the High Court when the previous blood samples were taken. Had it been I would have expected Mr. Justice Williams in his very careful Judgment to mention it.
One way or the other I would be interested to have an explanation about this.
Publication of the High Court Judgment was followed shortly after by the sudden and unexpected announcement that Yulia Skripal was recovering well and had regained consciousness.
That the two events – the publication of the Judgment and the announcement of Yulia Skripal’s recovery – might be linked, I have suggested previously

Now that the Russian consular authorities know of the Court proceedings concerning Yulia Skripal which have been underway it would in theory be open to them to instruct lawyers to apply for them to be joined as a party to those proceedings so that they can represent Yulia Skripal in them.
I have no idea whether they are considering doing so, but I do frankly wonder whether the sudden announcement of Yulia Skripal’s recovery – welcome news that it is – might also in part have been intended to forestall such a step by the Russian consular authorities on the grounds that Yulia Skripal is now in a position to make her own decisions.

Predictably enough, the announcement of Yulia Skripal’s recovery led to renewed Russian demands for consular access to her. The British have however failed to grant such access without saying clearly why.
Meanwhile photographs of Yulia Skripal have still not appeared. There is still no information about the treatment she is receiving. She still appears to have seen no visitors. There is no public word of any law firm representing her though the need for her to be provided with legal assistance – and to be allowed to consult with lawyers – is obvious.
Her cousin Viktoria Skripal has had only one telephone conversation with her that we know of, which she recorded.
As I have discussed previously, the impression provided by the transcript of the conversation is of Yulia Skripal being someone who feels very constrained in what she is either able or willing to say.
She does however know in advance that Viktoria Skripal’s request for a visa to come to Britain to see her is going to be refused (some British media outlets apparently deleted these words when they published the transcript).
That Viktoria Skripal’s request for a visa to come to Britain has been refused has now been confirmed by the BBC

Meanwhile, the UK has refused to grant a visa to Yulia’s cousin, Viktoria Skripal, the BBC has learned.
The Home Office said the application did not comply with immigration rules. A government source told the BBC it appears Russia is “trying to use Viktoria as a pawn”…..
Viktoria later told the BBC she did not have enough money in her bank account to satisfy the visa requirements.

The Guardian has provided further details of what “the government source” said about Viktoria Skripal

“It appears the Russian state is trying to use Victoria as a pawn,” a government source told the BBC, adding: “If she is being influenced or coerced by the Kremlin, she has become another victim.”

(bold italics added)
It looks as if the claim that Viktoria Skripal has insufficient money in her bank account to be granted a visa is just a pretext.
Just as her cousin Yulia Skripal told her, the British authorities have no intention of granting her a visa, not because she has insufficient money in her bank account but because they consider her to be “a pawn of the Russian government” (whatever that means).
Why that should prevent her from seeing her cousin, who is seriously ill, is left unexplained.
Incidentally I wonder whether the fact that the British authorities consider Viktoria Skripal to be “a pawn of the Russian government” also explains why she has been denied any role in the legal proceedings which affect her cousin, to the point where the British authorities appear to have failed even to inform Mr. Justice Williams of her existence?
All in all it appears that the British authorities are determined to prevent anyone from Russia – even members of Yulia Skripal’s family – from having contact with her.
That presumably accounts for the strange statement published in Yulia Skripal’s name by the British authorities in what looks like a rushed reaction to Viktoria Skripal’s publication of the transcript of her conversation with Yulia Skripal.
This statement – written in perfect idiomatic British English – appears to be intended to justify blocking access to her – either by the Russian authorities or by members of her family or by anyone such as a lawyer who might be acting on their behalf.
One effect of publication of the transcript of Yulia Skripal’s conversation with Viktoria Skripal has been that it has forced the British authorities to confirm that what Yulia Skripal told Viktoria Skripal during their conversation – that Sergey Skripal is not only alive but is also recovering – is true.
Directly after publication of the transcript I wrote that its contents appeared to suggest this, and now the British authorities themselves have been forced to confirm it.
In other words, just as publication of Mr. Justice Williams’s Judgment seems to have forced the British authorities to admit that Yulia Skripal is recovering and conscious, so Viktoria Skripal’s publication of the transcript of her telephone conversation with Yulia Skripal seems to have forced the British authorities to admit that Sergey Skripal is alive and recovering well.
Frankly the timing of these announcements, and the extraordinary secrecy about every aspect of the treatment and condition of Sergey and Yulia Skripal since they were first found on the bench, only reinforces the impression that the British authorities are in effect controlling them, and that they are being kept in a condition which looks suspiciously like detention.
Perhaps this is all being done in good faith and for their protection.
However John Helmer for one says that

The evidence now accumulating is that the hospital is detaining and isolating the Skripals against their will, preventing contact with their family.

(bold italics added)
He makes a compelling case.
With the collapse of the Novichok evidence Sergey and Yulia Skripal are now key witnesses in the case.
Perhaps they have nothing of value to say. It is striking that a week after Yulia Skripal recovered consciousness the British police have still not identified a suspect, which suggests that her knowledge of the facts behind the attack is limited.
However in the meantime the Russians are stating what many people will doubtless see as the obvious

That the Russians may have a point is strongly suggested by the following very interesting words in this interesting article by the Guardian’s diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour, which appeared on 30th March 2018, shortly after news of Yulia Skripal’s recovery was made public

Russia has also responded to the apparent recovery of Yulia Skripal, who was poisoned alongside her father. She may be able to provide insights into how the poisoning occurred, or even reveal whether she knows of some other motive by some other non-state actor.
The British intelligence services will be debriefing her as soon as her health permits. It would clearly be a huge embarrassment for the UK government if it emerged she believed the Russian state was not involved.

(bold italics added)
Perhaps it was not just rhetoric from Russia’s UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia when he warned the British at the UN Security Council meeting on 5th April 2018

……that they were playing with fire and would be sorry. Politicians in the United Kingdom had no idea that their hyped-up statements might boomerang back at them.

Does Nebenzia and the Russian government know more than they are saying? Perhaps there are more surprises ahead in this strange affair.


Filed under: empire watch, latest, Skripal case
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pat Back
Reader
Pat Back

Latest russian tv video from Salisbury hospital where should be hospitalized heavily poisoned Skripal. https://youtu.be/gDjemwcH4R0

vierotchka
Reader

It really looked like Yulia was leaving the hospital under very clos (plainclothes police?) escort.

Admin
Reader
Admin

Is that blurry 2s video supposed to be Yulia leaving the hospital?

vierotchka
Reader

I reckon so since it was repeated several times.

Etegere
Reader
Etegere

There can now be no doubt that the Skripals are being held illegally by the UK government. The UK narrative is now completely collapsing, right up to the absurd “memo” released today that makes all kinds of claims with no evidence. Just more lies. The British public will not stand for these lies much longer. It is clear the UK is trying to generate a cause for war against Russia in Syria, and they have decided to use the same tactic as they used before the illegal Iraq War: made up chemical weapons and attacks. If they don’t stop now… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

“The UK narrative is now completely collapsing, right up to the absurd “memo” released today that makes all kinds of claims with no evidence. Just more lies.” Well said Etegere. Today, in a marvellous example of transparent open government, befitting our advanced modern democracy, Mark Sedwill the UK’s National Security Advisor, wrote to Jens Stoltenberg at NATO. The entire letter is available for all to read. https://www.scribd.com/document/376270220/Letter-to-the-Nato-secretary-general#from_embed “During the 2000s, Russia commnenced a programme to test means of delivering chemical warfare agents and to train personnel from special units in the use of these weapons. This programme subsequently included investigation… Read more »

Pat back
Reader
Pat back

It seems that the “poisoning” of Skripal and his daughters may be much more related to events in Syria than at first glance. Consider the following situation. GRU Agent Skripal cheerfully reveals for several years the relatively important information of the British MI6. It is revealed and sentenced to 13.5 years. Together with him are revealed his clutches and contacts, which also go “rumble”. After a while, a group of Russian spies, operating in the UK and the United States, was unveiled. It also ends up behind the cathedral. Secret services, as is their custom, negotiate the exchange that will… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

OPCW Summary Reort ( publicly available ) https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/S_series/2018/en/s-1612-2018_e_.pdf The team was briefed on the identity of the toxic chemical identified by the United Kingdom and was able to review analytical results and data from chemical analysis of biomedical samples collected by the British authorities from the affected individuals, as well as from environmental samples collected on site. The results of analysis of biomedical samples conducted by OPCW designated laboratories demonstrate the exposure of the three hospitalised individuals to this toxic chemical. The results of analysis of the environmental samples conducted by OPCW designated laboratories demonstrate the presence of this toxic… Read more »

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

The OPCW report on the “Sergei Skrpal poison” to HM Gov was sent yesterday 11 April 2018
OPCW Issues Report on Technical Assistance Requested by the United Kingdom
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-issues-report-on-technical-assistance-requested-by-the-united-kingdom/

BigB
Reader

Yulia has been discharged: into protective CIA custody, or so it would seem. No photos or footage of Yulia: just a 37sec vid …along with the mandatory “please respect her privacy”. Privacy or extraordinary rendition?
https://www.rt.com/uk/423659-yulia-skripal-discharged-hospital/

flamingo
Reader
flamingo

Thank you bigB, now that she is mobile and can speak for herself would she please provide the world public with a copy of all statements made to the British police and other investigators. I am aware that she desires her privacy but as she has contributed to bringing the world to the brink of serious global tension, even war, she does owe us all an explanation of events. I am not immediately alleging that she has mislead authorities but certain authorities may have mislead us. Either way there has been a direct attack on public order and sense of… Read more »

vierotchka
Reader

I am pretty convinced that it is the British Authorities which have misled us.

Ross Hendry
Reader

I was going to say “you couldn’t make it up” but thought better of it.

vierotchka
Reader

This is interesting:
Tour: “It’s impossible to pin source of weapon to a country”
Published on 9 Apr 2018
“It’s impossible to pin source of weapon to a country” says James Tour as the fallout continues from Skripal case.

Patrick Mahony
Reader
Patrick Mahony

They are probably dead already. The relocation story is misdirection. If they had “died” after the attack the Russians would want the bodies. This way they can disappear without the embarrassment of another inexplicable Nash Van Drake cremation.

Yonatan
Reader
Yonatan

Regarding the pending surprise, there is strong evidence that the Syrian Arab Army captured a number of British SAS troops amongst the terrorists in the recently liberated east Ghouta enclave. These troops were reportedly giving targetting information to the terrorists for the mortar and rocket attacks in Damascus. The recent targets included a school, a hospital, a crowded market, and also the Russian consulate.

Mikalina
Reader
Mikalina

Check out the video Alaffcreator uploaded. The analyst there explains this quite clearly. Also, the successful targeting of ‘higher up’ military personnel, both Russian and Syrian, presumably, again, from intelligence ‘provided’ to the TERRORISTS (not rebels, Grundian) by US/UK/Israeli embedded illegal forces in Ghouta.

Yonatan
Reader
Yonatan

The first set of blood samples had clear medical justification – to establish a cause for the symptoms allowing the Skirpals to be treated. The second set has no medical justification hence the court case to gain permission.

JudyJ
Reader

The Russians drew attention to the fact that France had been involved in the UK’s investigations. I have read since that they apparently reconfirmed the UK’s findings about the type of nerve agent. That aside, because I would have no confidence in what the UK may have provided them with, it begs several questions: Did they involve the French before calling upon the OPCW? If so, why? Porton Down, or so we are told, is a leading world authority on CWs. Do we take it that the French also have stocks of A234 to compare the samples with? Did they… Read more »

Kathy
Reader
Kathy

So it would seam things are all panning out as so many people on here have been predicting. It is like Casandra,s curse in Greek tragedy. Seeing what will be and not being able to stop it rolling on,. The narrative twists and turns. I guess if Yulia had died the Russian government would have had some rights to repatriate the body but alive the Skripals can be said to have refused all visitors and Russian intervention. So again all very convenient for the UK agenda. It is scary how they could well be spirited away and no one may… Read more »

flamingo
Reader
flamingo

They will most likely end up in Flint USA as the lead poisoning permanently destroys memory capacity and no one there will recognize them. There are at least 2000 equally contaminated cities in USA where they could hang out and no one would ask an intelligent question. So if exotic killer chemicals fail, there is always lead in some form.

falcemartello
Reader

Well this idiotic psy-op is getting even smellier . It is rumoured that they have been offered protective custodial protection by pax-americana . They will e flown to the Un and that they are preparing prosecution case against . ? I will give you one guess and further more another country might be implicated as accomplice or the actual purveyor of the agent. Hence 1914 and the dying days of the League of Nations redux. Buckle down and better re stock your popcorn ,crisps beer and vino or soda cause who needs Netflix we got Pax-americana and their vassals .… Read more »

Stephen Sivonda
Reader
Stephen Sivonda

Here is an new article by veteransToday…..it’s about the false flag gas attacks in Syria and how the US coalition partners supply Chem weps and materials to the jihadi’s in Syria. There is also a tie in to Skripal and Porton Down. https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/04/08/proof-intel-drop-trump-bolton-behind-syria-chemical-attacks-confirmed/

JudyJ
Reader

Thanks for this link. Absolute must read for everyone. VERY significant connections between Porton Down, Skripal and what is going on in Syria. I have forwarded the article to ‘Govt believing’ friends of mine in the hope it will give them food for thought.

bevin
Reader
bevin

An interesting story on the Browder, Berezovsky lads, MI 6, the CIA and all those deaths ‘ordered by Russia.’
http://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/04/07/french-counter-terror-boss-says-putin-didnt-kill-litvinenko-us-and-uk-did-and-he-has-proof/

vierotchka
Reader

I have posted the following a number of times on Off Guardian:
Published on 3 Aug 2017
Renowned French security expert Paul Barril discloses the existence of Operation Beluga, a covert Western intelligence scheme intended to undermine Russia and its leaders.

mog
Reader
mog

Yeah watched that also, last time you posted it. Fascinating. Please keep posting it.
The French intelligence organisations are clearly like the Americans, the British, The Saudis and the Israelis – i.e. they have more in common with each other than they do with any of their own populations.

BigB
Reader

After all this time (10years) after they got the documents from Germany: RT chooses to release this expose of the Litvinenko case. They too finger Berezovsky: but protect Lugovoy and Kovtun. Notice the very subtle inference of the headline: “Russians” – suggesting the Po-210 was in London before both Kovtun and Lugovoy …yet the document (as produced ) only exonerated Kovtun? Somehow I surmise we are unaware of the waging of an invisible intelligence war: a Clash of Titans to which we, as mere mortals, can only witness the distant clash of thunder?
https://www.rt.com/news/423554-litvinenko-polonium-london-berezovsky/

BigB
Reader

Reposted the video yesterday (and credited you) and commented: If you have not already seen it: you must watch the testimony of Paul Barril. He was one of Frances top intelligence officers and he implicates an Italian/Chechen connection in the murder of Litvinenko. He names the Italian as Mario Scaramella. This is the same man Litvinenko named as his murderer. Lugovoi merely brought the Polonium 210. “According to Paul Barril, Litvinenko was himself working for the late Boris Berezovsky [a Russian fugitive oligarch that made London his home] who, according to Barril, was in turn working for and with the… Read more »

thorella
Reader

I think they will be detained for as long as possible until all traces of the poison leave their bodies. I don’t for one minute believe it was Novichok

intergenerationaltrauma
Reader

I’ve seen no evidence to make me believe a single word of the “Russia did it” narrative. Yet let us assume for sake of comparative response that Russian intelligence had poisoned these folks. How does the current Western response in any way resemble the West’s response to Obama drone bombing American citizens in the Middle East and killing literally hundreds of civilians in the process of these illegal activities? I recall no, none, nada, zilch expulsion of American diplomats; no calls for economic sanctions against America’s rouge regime; no critical Western response overall whatsoever. So “what” exactly would be the… Read more »

archie1954
Reader

When the UK breaks all treaty rules, international protocol, diplomatic niceties and keeps possible victims of harm in detention, against its own laws, then you know it is trying to cover up its own complicity in their harm. It is shameful and embarrassing to see such foolish and disturbing antics on the part of the UK government.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Not as far as the fakestream media are concerned it doesn’t. And the long expected fake ‘gas attack’ in Syria, with-you guessed it- a ‘nerve agent’ involved, has arrived, complete with a Fraudian editorial of psychotic viciousness, hypocrisy and mendacity. These psychopaths are going for broke. What price that the ‘nerve agent’ turns out to be a ‘novichok’. I see that the psychotics are blaming Iran, as well as Russia, so those Iranian experiments with novichoks in 2016 may be about to come back and bite them.

vierotchka
Reader

They are not psychotic, they are psychopaths. HUGE difference.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

One inherent, indeed hereditary, one a treatable condition? Is that your definition?

vierotchka
Reader

About psychopaths:
https://www.healthyplace.com/personality-disorders/sociopath/high-functioning-sociopaths-and-the-damage-they-cause/
About psychotics:
https://www.healthline.com/health/psychosis
Psychotics suffer from a mental illness and can be treated. Psychopaths have an antisocial personality disorder, it is not a mental illness and, as such, cannot be treated.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

I see-I’d still argue that the Western ruling class are psychopaths who exhibit psychotic behaviour during regular exacerbations of their underlying pathology. Indeed the gap between these exacerbations is shortening all the time.

vierotchka
Reader

The two are mutually exclusive.

vexarb
Reader

@Mulga. Difference: Psychotic — a medical condition which makes it very difficult for the patient to distinguish between dream /nightmare state and reality but is otherwise harmless (a sort of acting out a dream / nightmare while awake). Psychopathic — someone with an active, deliberate, intelligent and coldly manipulative tendency to harm society, preferably through falsehood and murder; think TB.Liar, think Clinton. Kudos to Vierotchka for calling this one out. Alfred Hitchock has a lot to answer for; he should have called his film “Psychopath” — it would have spared much additional suffering to many millions of harmless people.

Chris osh
Reader
Chris osh

It sounds to me as though the Skripals will acquire new identities and a new location in the US shortly before they have a joint and fatal relapse to the alleged nerve agent.
The Tin Lady can then say how unfortunate and how sorry she is.

MrTuvok
Reader
MrTuvok

This was troubling news, indeed. It looks like they have plans to make them disappear.

Francis Fuller
Reader
Francis Fuller

https://thesaker.is/a-curious-incident-part-viii/
Gives an analysis of statements by Boris Johnson in which he admits prior knowledge of foreign state violations of the Chemcical Warfare Convention but took no action.
Such inaction is against the spirit and intent of the CWC and Johnson should resign.
Of Johnson’s statements are false and misleading in which case he should resign.

Paul
Reader
Paul

Whereas it’s clear that Bojo and the Tin Lady are playing a weak hand badly–and have only been spared by the appalling complicity of virtually the entire panoply of Western media as information warfare adjuncts–which is in itself a stunning and sickening display of power–it’s not clear that Russia has played a stronger hand much more ably. In sum, the questions, criticisms and suggested avenues of response posed here, as well as at the Off-Guardian, John Helmer’s blog, the Saker, MoA, and strategic culture.org (anyone who hasn’t seen Rob Slane’s 50 questions there really should), has been much richer and… Read more »