Skripal 2.0: Here's 10 Easy Questions The British Government Must Answer

Authored by Rob Slane via,

In his statement to the House of Commons on 5th July, the British Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, stated the following:

“The use of chemical weapons anywhere is barbaric and inhumane. The decision taken by the Russian government to deploy these in Salisbury on March 4 was reckless and callous –  there is no plausible alternative explanation to the events in March other than the Russian state was responsible. The eyes of the world are on Russia, not least because of the World Cup. It is now time the Russian state comes forward and explains exactly what has gone on.”

Anyone with their wits about them will immediately notice the cognitive dissonance in Mr Javid’s statement.

  • On the one hand, he states that the Russian government took a decision to deploy chemical weapons in Salisbury on 4th March, 2018. This is an emphatic declaration, and implies that the British Government possesses irrefutable evidence that this is so.

  • Then in the next breath, he states that there is “no plausible alternative”. This is very much less than emphatic, and the word “plausible” implies that the British Government does not have irrefutable evidence to back up their claim.

This is not a subtle difference. It is the difference between suspecting something and knowing something. If you know something to be true, because you have the hard evidence to back it up, you don’t use equivocal phrases like “no plausible alternative”. You simply say, “here is the evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.” On the other hand, if you do not possess irrefutable evidence of something, as the weasel phrase “no plausible alternative” suggests, then you have no right to pronounce definitively on the matter, as Mr Javid felt fit to do.

Still, he’s only the Home Secretary. You can’t expect him to understand such petty legal concepts.

As it happens, there are plenty of plausible alternatives, as Mr Javid no doubt knows only too well. If he’s interested, he can check out the one I have put forward here. Of course, regardless of whether my “plausible alternative” is correct or not, it is unlikely that Her Majesty’s Government would want investigations to follow the line of inquiry I advanced, since it might raise an awful lot of troublesome questions about the role of British Intelligence in the attempt to stop Donald Trump getting elected.

Apparently, they want to keep that quiet. Which is why they slapped D-Notices on various aspects of Skripal 1.0 to hush all that up.

So Mr Javid states that Russia must explain itself, but in so doing unwittingly admits that the Government has no hard evidence of Russian state involvement. It merely is unable to imagine a “plausible alternative”, which either means that its members are somewhat lacking in imagination, or they don’t wish other “plausible alternatives” to be discussed (of course, it could even be both). Nevertheless, since he and the Government are the ones making the claim, I’d say that actually it is incumbent on them to explain themselves, not the ones they are accusing. That is how these things are supposed to work, is it not?

This being the case, I have a number of questions for them, which urgently need answering. Urgent, because they could prove vital to the investigation. However, before I come onto the questions, I must explain the nature of them, which may well come as something of a surprise, given the latest twist to this sorry tale in Amesbury. The surprise is that not one of the 10 questions relates to the Amesbury case. This might seem odd, but there is a very important reason for it.

At the moment, very few details have emerged about the Amesbury case, and so it is not exactly clear which questions could even be asked. True, the details that have emerged so far in the official narrative are about as coherent and plausible as those in the original case, one of which I have already debunked here. However, what Mr Javid sought to do, with a very clever sleight-of-hand to cover his case of cognitive dissonance, is to make definitive claims about Case 2, based on the assumption that Case 1 has somehow been proven. But of course it hasn’t. Not even remotely. In fact, there are a ton of questions about Case 1 still hanging in the air that have not been answered, and I really don’t think that we should let Mr Javid and Co. off the hook before they’ve given us the answers to them.

But in the spirit of decency, let’s make it extremely easy for them. Let’s not ask them any hard questions. Nothing like, “C’mon, tell us the names of the people wot did it,” for instance. No, let’s instead satisfy ourselves by asking them some remarkably simple questions that they – or at least the Metropolitan Police – must know the answers to if their narrative is correct, and for a very simple reason, as you will see. So here goes:

  1. What were Mr Skripal’s and Yulia’s movements on the morning of 4th March?

  2. Why were their phones switched off?

  3. Did Mr Skripal see anyone or anything suspicious near his house that day?

  4. According to witnesses in Zizzis, Mr Skripal appeared to be very agitated. Was this because he was feeling unwell?

  5. According to witnesses in Zizzis, Mr Skripal appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Was this because he had an appointment to keep?

  6. What did Mr Skripal do after he left Zizzis?

  7. Can he confirm or deny that the couple seen on the CCTV camera in Market Walk, one of whom was carrying a large red bag, are him and Yulia?

  8. Did either Sergei or Yulia have a large red bag with them that day?

  9. What are his last memories before collapsing at the bench?

  10. Is Mr Skripal prepared to make a public statement answering the above, and will members of the international media be free to ask him questions?

So why must they know the answers to these questions? Simple. Because all they have to do to get answers to them is ask Sergei Skripal. They know where he is, don’t they? They must have questioned him, haven’t they? And Mr Skripal must surely have been eager to answer them, since the answers he gives could prove vital in helping to find out who poisoned him and his daughter, mustn’t he?

Just pause there for a second and think about it. Here we are, a third of a year after Skripal 1.0, with both Mr Skripal and his daughter having recovered months ago, and we still don’t know the answers to these basic, vital, but extraordinarily easy-to-establish questions. Isn’t that amazing?

I could even make it easier for them by boiling it down into one question:

When will the world hear from Mr Skripal about the events and circumstances of 4th March 2018, from the time he awoke until 4pm that afternoon?

C’mon British Government. It really isn’t hard. Or at least it wouldn’t be if the case you’ve presented is true. Just ask Sergei. But in the continued absence of answers to these simple questions, it seems that there might well be no “plausible alternative” but to assume that your case simply does not stack up. Which is why the onus is on you, not those you accuse, to explain yourselves.


css1971 Sun, 07/08/2018 - 11:10 Permalink

It's worse. It's entirely intellectually incoherent.


1st they state "It was the Russians"

2nd they state "there's no other explanation"

3rd they state "WTF? Why did the Russians poison 2 people. Cos we don't know.".

EuroPox Nuclear Winter Sun, 07/08/2018 - 11:56 Permalink

Frankly, why bother to try and unpick the 'official' story?  We already know it is a pack of lies - so what is the point?

NOBODY was exposed to a nerve agent. Dr. Steven Davies said so in his 16 March letter to the Times:

“…may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning in Salisbury.”

Don't try to get them to explain anything, just ridicule them for being so stupid!

In reply to by Nuclear Winter

el buitre 107cicero Sun, 07/08/2018 - 15:20 Permalink

Sergei Skripal worked for MI6 as a double agent. Christopher Steele worked for MI6 as a "spy" (what every that means exactly.)  They had the same handler but I forgot his name and am too lazy to recheck it.  They undoubtedly knew each other.  Skripal was probably used, either as a background source or as the primary author, of the Dossier due to his fluency in Russian and English and his knowledge of Russian personalities, at least before he went to jail in Russia.  I am sure that this attempted poisoning is connected with Skripal's involvement in the production of the Steele Dossier, and that the poisoning was carried out by MI6.  He may have attempted to blackmail MI6 with the release of embarrassing information.  My speculation is that MI6 delivered the money in that red satchel to Skripal, laced it with carfentanil.  Sergei asked his daughter to help him count it.  I would bet the farm that MI6 poisoned them, and I do (sort of) have a farm :-)

In reply to by 107cicero

chubbar css1971 Sun, 07/08/2018 - 12:05 Permalink

I want to hear more about the efforts of UK's intelligence services to keep Trump from being elected. Why did the head of GCHQ retire the day Trump was inaugurated? Why did they communicate through unofficial channels with either the CIA or FBI? Basically, who the fuck are these clowns to fuck with US elections? Was it on the behest of Obama? These fuckers are crooked, everyone needs to know what pieces of shit these assholes are.

In reply to by css1971

kellys_eye SoDamnMad Sun, 07/08/2018 - 18:08 Permalink

If 'we' were indeed complicit in interfering with Trump's election then 'we' deserve every punishement you (the USA) cares to place upon us.

But please be assured - the PEOPLE of the UK were innocent in these events.  If you could direct any repercussions directly to those guilty parties we'd be forever grateful.

We're led by a bunch of lying, deceptive cunts and it doesn't seem to make any difference whosoever we elect to Parliament.  Screw the lot of them.

In reply to by SoDamnMad

Ace006 chubbar Sun, 07/08/2018 - 21:15 Permalink

Exactly. The "Russia interfered with U.S. democracy" story is absurd. (As if any of us give a damn about "our democracy" what with illegals voting and ID-less voting.) It was the British conniving with our Deep State pricks who did the interfering .

This is what the nonsense about Skripal 1.0 (pointed out in this article) is all about. May, like our DS swine, rolled the dice on a Clinton win and lost big time. May will do anything to conceal Britain's complicity which is why she's willing to hold the Skripals against their will.

In reply to by chubbar

max_is_leering Sun, 07/08/2018 - 11:11 Permalink

listened to that bald headed STOOGE on the telee the other day... they got nothing, especially when the brits by a large margin think they (.gov) are all LIARS!!!

HowdyDoody loveyajimbo Sun, 07/08/2018 - 13:28 Permalink

Well, he is a fan of Ayn Rand, became a vice chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank by 25, and then managing director of Douche Bank. He is also a member of the AEI along with Cheney, Wolfowitz and Bolton. He is fully on board the 'bombing countries into freedom and democracy'. He certainly knows which buttons to press to rapidly ascend to the highest levels.



In reply to by loveyajimbo

Thom Paine Sun, 07/08/2018 - 11:22 Permalink

Everybody knows the UK government is not only lying, but set up the whole scam - to demonize Russia.

UK politician's Deep State masters told Theresa May - do something to smear Russia, and quick, before Trump and Putin get together and end our neocon MIC scamming.


Theresa said - 'I can do deep throat too' 'please mister, do me'

mc888 Sun, 07/08/2018 - 11:24 Permalink

This was the same couple on the video from the Skripal attack. Do you believe in coincidence?

Most likely they were the MI6 agents that poisoned the Skripals and had to be silenced by their own agency.

adonisdemilo Sun, 07/08/2018 - 11:47 Permalink

TPTB will  have to find some new script writers instead of wet

behind the ears teenage graduates with the equivalent of a school certificate and a dog licence.

We are getting fed up with the same old, same old. The attempted scams are as obvious as a boil on the end of your nose, and about as scary.

Obamanism666 Sun, 07/08/2018 - 11:53 Permalink

Deep state leaving it a bit late to try and stop the Putin-Trump meeting on the 16th.

I guess the uk-international governments will want Trump to put pressure on Putin at the meeting.

So that will take all of 2 and half minutes to discuss just before the tea/coffee is served.


NOTE: in the most recent case people in Camo-Noddy suits were seen. So why are the military in a civilian case?

Drug addicts find Germ warfare clue

opport.knocks Obamanism666 Sun, 07/08/2018 - 13:09 Permalink

Pfft - everything "decided" at the Putin-Trump meeting will have already been decided in advance via the back room channels and signed off by the CFR.  Just like the Kim photo-op.

The entire Trump presidency is a reality TV show and just as fake/scripted. 

For Part 2: My working theory is that the UK/US are field testing a variation of the former Soviet era agent that can be used for a credible false flag in Syria or elsewhere (luckily there will be an antidote nearby) and blamed on Russia. A couple of drug addicts would be considered expendable.

In reply to by Obamanism666

Ex-Oligarch opport.knocks Sun, 07/08/2018 - 17:34 Permalink

Of course the meeting is for show, the negotiations done in advance.  Twas ever thus. Theater.

But CFR and its ilk have been screaming bloody murder while fighting tooth and nail to undermine Trump's policy initiatives. What makes you believe Trump is acting at their behest? 

If he was, how do you explain the deep state's ongoing assaults on the president -- the leaking, the lying, the refusals to produce documents, the foot-dragging, the ceaseless criticism, the strident verbal and physical assaults on his supporters?  Do you believe that is all theater, too?   

In reply to by opport.knocks

quasi_verbatim Sun, 07/08/2018 - 13:10 Permalink

I used to think Trump was Best President Ever until he allowed himself to be suckered by the Brits on Pissgate and the Skripals.

Now I realize he's like most other US presidents.

hooligan2009 Sun, 07/08/2018 - 13:18 Permalink

javid, home secrete-ary: "we have tried you without representation, evidence or due process and have found you GUILTY. now, can you please confess to the crime and provide the evidence that incriminates you"?

russia: "fuck off you ignorant little twat and take your handbag with you"

WTFUD hibou-Owl Sun, 07/08/2018 - 15:34 Permalink

To be fair The Poms have forced the resignation of numerous Politicians ( more recently over MP's Allowances/Expenses ) and will vote-out Members every 4 years who've behaved inappropriately. This is NOT the case in the US where the same Corrupt Congressmen/women, regardless, are there for the long-haul. 

In reply to by hibou-Owl

Herdee Sun, 07/08/2018 - 13:49 Permalink

False-Flag attacks gone haywire. May & Johnson's big plans of war gone bad. Now it's the Russiaphobia narrative and propaganda management.

koan Sun, 07/08/2018 - 13:49 Permalink

It's easy to understand if you consider the saying "never waste a crisis".
While the Brits may not know who did it for sure, you can bet they will use the incident to their advantage (propaganda favoring the state).
And the advantage these days seems to be smearing the Russians and Trump.