Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You can turn off life support in the UK without approval of his living children (at least without a court case)?

The state can make the decision to turn off life support against family wishes, but it requires a court order. This has been in th press a number of times, including recently. Normally it involves a terminally ill child whose parents can't let go. I can understand the parents grief, but sometimes the state has to step in and say enough.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
He says no one had a binary weapon? But binary weapons have been the standard of chemical weapons for the past 40 years or so...

Yes and no. Not all chemical weapons can be made into a binary weapon for a variety of reasons. Chlorine, sulfur mustard, and Phosgene for example can't, as Chlorine is a pure element and phosgene is produced by passing purified carbon monoxide and chlorine gas through a bed of porous activated carbon, which serves as a catalyst. Both have, sadly, seen use in the last 40 years.

Sulfur mustard [(ClCH2CH2)2S] is a little more elaborate but still does not easily formulate into reagents that can simply be 'mixed' in a shell in motion.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And why were they looking into binary forms of VX when this was already known and the Soviet Union never used VX?

'Used' being the operative word. FOLIANT did actually experiment with a knock off V-series compound (From another source if it makes you feel better) They never finished a working weapon from their version, and abandoned work sometime in the 1990s. So he may have been using the generic 'VX' here to refer to that part of the program.

The Soviets did indeed develop a V-agent, VR to be precise. VR and VX are isomers of each other, and they have largely the same properties (the biggest difference being a much higher rate of decomposition of VR), but they are constructed differently. It would be weird for him to talk about VX, since that refers to a specific agent and not V-agents in general.

 War Drone wrote:
Iron Captain seems to be suspiciously and frighteningly well-informed on the production and delivery of nerve agents.

We might have found the culprit!

I will neither confirm nor deny that I am secretly a mysterious and highly skilled assassin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
He says no one had a binary weapon? But binary weapons have been the standard of chemical weapons for the past 40 years or so...

Yes and no. Not all chemical weapons can be made into a binary weapon for a variety of reasons. Chlorine, sulfur mustard, and Phosgene for example can't, as Chlorine is a pure element and phosgene is produced by passing purified carbon monoxide and chlorine gas through a bed of porous activated carbon, which serves as a catalyst. Both have, sadly, seen use in the last 40 years.

Sulfur mustard [(ClCH2CH2)2S] is a little more elaborate but still does not easily formulate into reagents that can simply be 'mixed' in a shell in motion.

No, and that is why a lot of chemical weapons aren't binary. In fact, the vast majority of chemical weapons that were produced weren't binary. But binary weapons are generally considered superior to non-binary ones because they can be stored longer and more safely, and can also be more easily disposed of when no longer needed. That is why virtually all newer chemical weapons are binary.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You can turn off life support in the UK without approval of his living children (at least without a court case)?

The state can make the decision to turn off life support against family wishes, but it requires a court order. This has been in th press a number of times, including recently. Normally it involves a terminally ill child whose parents can't let go. I can understand the parents grief, but sometimes the state has to step in and say enough.

Yeah I know about that case and that it requires a court order, so I was a bit surprised that it was said they would have already taken Skripal of live support if he was brain dead (by now its seems he's improving). I would assume it would take longer than a single month to get that sort of thing cleared.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You can turn off life support in the UK without approval of his living children (at least without a court case)?

The state can make the decision to turn off life support against family wishes, but it requires a court order. This has been in th press a number of times, including recently. Normally it involves a terminally ill child whose parents can't let go. I can understand the parents grief, but sometimes the state has to step in and say enough.

Yeah I know about that case and that it requires a court order, so I was a bit surprised that it was said they would have already taken Skripal of live support if he was brain dead (by now its seems he's improving). I would assume it would take longer than a single month to get that sort of thing cleared.

That is because brain death is different to a vegetative state of profound neurological impairment. A brain dead person is legally dead, and this can be empirically assessed using clinical methods at the bedside, and is checked by more than one doctor. Some states do prevent brainstem fuction from being accurately assessed, such as hypothermia, as this can mask brainstem function and hypothermia the patient needs to be warmed up. A poorly understood nerve agent may fall into this category.

The recent court cases involved still living children with profound neurological impairment and likely continual suffering, who had no prospect of improvement. The decision to switch off life support was made to prevent undue suffering in light of the futility of further treatment, not because the children were dead. That is part of why they were so contentious.

Brain death is a well defined legal concept, and if Sergei Skripal had been brain dead, they would have switched off his life support because it is legally the same as being decapitated (although organ harvest is different). There is no point maintaining life support for a dead person unless the organs have been donated and are awaiting harvest. After brain death, even on life support, the bodies homeostatic mechanisms become increasingly deranged and eventually the body will die too, because life support is comparitively pretty crude with current medical knowledge and technology. It just takes a lot longer for the body to die than without life support.

 Haighus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You can turn off life support in the UK without approval of his living children (at least without a court case)?

The state can make the decision to turn off life support against family wishes, but it requires a court order. This has been in th press a number of times, including recently. Normally it involves a terminally ill child whose parents can't let go. I can understand the parents grief, but sometimes the state has to step in and say enough.

Yeah I know about that case and that it requires a court order, so I was a bit surprised that it was said they would have already taken Skripal of live support if he was brain dead (by now its seems he's improving). I would assume it would take longer than a single month to get that sort of thing cleared.

That is because brain death is different to a vegetative state of profound neurological impairment. A brain dead person is legally dead, and this can be empirically assessed using clinical methods at the bedside, and is checked by more than one doctor. Some states do prevent brainstem fuction from being accurately assessed, such as hypothermia, as this can mask brainstem function and hypothermia the patient needs to be warmed up. A poorly understood nerve agent may fall into this category.

The recent court cases involved still living children with profound neurological impairment and likely continual suffering, who had no prospect of improvement. The decision to switch off life support was made to prevent undue suffering in light of the futility of further treatment, not because the children were dead. That is part of why they were so contentious.

Brain death is a well defined legal concept, and if Sergei Skripal had been brain dead, they would have switched off his life support because it is legally the same as being decapitated (although organ harvest is different). There is no point maintaining life support for a dead person unless the organs have been donated and are awaiting harvest. After brain death, even on life support, the bodies homeostatic mechanisms become increasingly deranged and eventually the body will die too, because life support is comparitively pretty crude with current medical knowledge and technology. It just takes a lot longer for the body to die than without life support.

Yeah I understand the background behind being brain dead. My question just is if they could switch it off the moment he would have been declared brain dead without first going to court or ask his living children (or partner if he still had one which he didn't)? In the Netherlands the direct family gets the choice to switch off life support or transfer the patient to a care home, so that's why I was wondering. Of course legal recourse still exists here too.

So the question basically boils down to: if someone is legally brain dead, the decision to switch off life support is directly placed in the hands of their doctors without recourse in the UK? Its not so much a question about being brain dead,more a question about how quickly you're allowed to turn off life support.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Soviets did indeed develop a V-agent, VR to be precise. VR and VX are isomers of each other, and they have largely the same properties (the biggest difference being a much higher rate of decomposition of VR), but they are constructed differently. It would be weird for him to talk about VX, since that refers to a specific agent and not V-agents in general.

Because the average person would at least have an idea of what VX was, but 'VR' or 'V-series agent' might confuse them a bit. Even the US refereed to the Soviet version simply as 'v-gas'.

Frankly the interview struck me as someone who's first language is not English, tying to keep it so that the average English speaking person would understand what he was talking about.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You can turn off life support in the UK without approval of his living children (at least without a court case)?

The state can make the decision to turn off life support against family wishes, but it requires a court order. This has been in th press a number of times, including recently. Normally it involves a terminally ill child whose parents can't let go. I can understand the parents grief, but sometimes the state has to step in and say enough.

Yeah I know about that case and that it requires a court order, so I was a bit surprised that it was said they would have already taken Skripal of live support if he was brain dead (by now its seems he's improving). I would assume it would take longer than a single month to get that sort of thing cleared.

That is because brain death is different to a vegetative state of profound neurological impairment. A brain dead person is legally dead, and this can be empirically assessed using clinical methods at the bedside, and is checked by more than one doctor. Some states do prevent brainstem fuction from being accurately assessed, such as hypothermia, as this can mask brainstem function and hypothermia the patient needs to be warmed up. A poorly understood nerve agent may fall into this category.

The recent court cases involved still living children with profound neurological impairment and likely continual suffering, who had no prospect of improvement. The decision to switch off life support was made to prevent undue suffering in light of the futility of further treatment, not because the children were dead. That is part of why they were so contentious.

Brain death is a well defined legal concept, and if Sergei Skripal had been brain dead, they would have switched off his life support because it is legally the same as being decapitated (although organ harvest is different). There is no point maintaining life support for a dead person unless the organs have been donated and are awaiting harvest. After brain death, even on life support, the bodies homeostatic mechanisms become increasingly deranged and eventually the body will die too, because life support is comparitively pretty crude with current medical knowledge and technology. It just takes a lot longer for the body to die than without life support.

Yeah I understand the background behind being brain dead. My question just is if they could switch it off the moment he would have been declared brain dead without first going to court or ask his living children (or partner if he still had one which he didn't)? In the Netherlands the direct family gets the choice to switch off life support or transfer the patient to a care home, so that's why I was wondering. Of course legal recourse still exists here too.

So the question basically boils down to: if someone is legally brain dead, the decision to switch off life support is directly placed in the hands of their doctors without recourse in the UK? Its not so much a question about being brain dead,more a question about how quickly you're allowed to turn off life support.

At risk of derailing the thread, here is the relevant information:

http://www.aomrc.org.uk/publications/reports-guidance/ukdec-reports-and-guidance/code-practice-diagnosis-confirmation-death/

Essentially, if the patient is confirmed dead (including brain death) by two senior doctors, they can be removed from life support, which is now futile, unless they wished to donate their organs. The legal responsibility lies with the doctors.

The family has no say in this, because they would just be prolonging the lifespan of aspects of the decesased patient's body after death. As it happens, the family has no legal say in an adult patient's care full stop, unless they hold power of attorney for the patient and the patient has lost capacity. However, it is good practice to include the wishes of the family if appropriate, and the family can appeal to the courts over any decision made over care (not over death, this isn't a decision about care, but about the patient's state).

 Iron_Captain wrote:
"horses" is the more simple explanation. "zebras" is a more exotic explanation for the same thing.

Simply repeating your mistakes over and over again isn't debate. Don't timewaste with that nonsense. A horse isn't a more appealing answer because it's a simpler creature because it isn't any more simple than a zebra, they're both plains feeding quadrupeds. The horse is the more appealing answer because horses are a lot more common than zebras.

This is really something, by the way. You're now trying to debate an expression you had literally never heard of until I mentioned it to you. You will debate every minor point, just to throw up more obstacles to assigning guilt to your beloved Russia.

They aren't negatives, they are positives. Disproving positives is far from impossible. We also don't disprove everything, just things that seem credible. Like you would not investigate a possibility that Skripal was assassinated by MI5 on orders of an Irish Leprechaun whose pot of gold Skripal had stolen, but you would investigate a possibility that Skripal had criminal connections and was assassinated by criminal elements rather than state agents

If there was a distinct list of alternative possibilities, then each would be a positive we could tick off one after the next. But instead you've gone with the pretend defense of vaguely listing alternative options, whatever they may be. That's a never ending list, and as soon as one item is proven false you or another Russian partisan can just add another dozen imaginary alternatives. It's a junk process you've invented to pretend you have any interest in actually establishing what happened.

Why did Russia refuse to extradite the guy who murdered Litvinenko? Because they had to. Their constitution says they can't extradite him, so they can't extradite. Russia can never extradite anyone, not even if it is the most horrid mass murderer in the world and there is plenty of evidence. It is against the constitution. The Russian government can't extradite people even if it wants to.

That's the legalist defense, used to try and blather around the same conclusion. By not having extradition, one of two alternatives is possible. Possibly Russia has laws on the books that crimes committed by Russian in other countries can be prosecuted in Russia - if this is true and Russia refuses to do this then they show contempt of international law. Or alternatively Russia has no laws on its books to prosecute Russians who commit crimes in other countries, in which case their contempt for international law is written in to legal codes.

Either way, Russia is showing complete contempt for international law and is protecting a spy against whom an overwhelming amount of evidence shows he committed murder. In that environment it's plainly absurd for Russia to start to demanding that evidence to a legal standard be presented before Britain can be allowed to act.

 Haighus wrote:

At risk of derailing the thread, here is the relevant information:

http://www.aomrc.org.uk/publications/reports-guidance/ukdec-reports-and-guidance/code-practice-diagnosis-confirmation-death/

Essentially, if the patient is confirmed dead (including brain death) by two senior doctors, they can be removed from life support, which is now futile, unless they wished to donate their organs. The legal responsibility lies with the doctors.

The family has no say in this, because they would just be prolonging the lifespan of aspects of the decesased patient's body after death. As it happens, the family has no legal say in an adult patient's care full stop, unless they hold power of attorney for the patient and the patient has lost capacity. However, it is good practice to include the wishes of the family if appropriate, and the family can appeal to the courts over any decision made over care (not over death, this isn't a decision about care, but about the patient's state).

Thank you very much. That puts the Skripal case and him having been in critical condition for so long in perspective (even though he is out by now. Much appreciated.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
"horses" is the more simple explanation. "zebras" is a more exotic explanation for the same thing.

Simply repeating your mistakes over and over again isn't debate. Don't timewaste with that nonsense. A horse isn't a more appealing answer because it's a simpler creature because it isn't any more simple than a zebra, they're both plains feeding quadrupeds. The horse is the more appealing answer because horses are a lot more common than zebras.

This is really something, by the way. You're now trying to debate an expression you had literally never heard of until I mentioned it to you. You will debate every minor point, just to throw up more obstacles to assigning guilt to your beloved Russia.

They aren't negatives, they are positives. Disproving positives is far from impossible. We also don't disprove everything, just things that seem credible. Like you would not investigate a possibility that Skripal was assassinated by MI5 on orders of an Irish Leprechaun whose pot of gold Skripal had stolen, but you would investigate a possibility that Skripal had criminal connections and was assassinated by criminal elements rather than state agents

If there was a distinct list of alternative possibilities, then each would be a positive we could tick off one after the next. But instead you've gone with the pretend defense of vaguely listing alternative options, whatever they may be. That's a never ending list, and as soon as one item is proven false you or another Russian partisan can just add another dozen imaginary alternatives. It's a junk process you've invented to pretend you have any interest in actually establishing what happened.

Why did Russia refuse to extradite the guy who murdered Litvinenko? Because they had to. Their constitution says they can't extradite him, so they can't extradite. Russia can never extradite anyone, not even if it is the most horrid mass murderer in the world and there is plenty of evidence. It is against the constitution. The Russian government can't extradite people even if it wants to.

That's the legalist defense, used to try and blather around the same conclusion. By not having extradition, one of two alternatives is possible. Possibly Russia has laws on the books that crimes committed by Russian in other countries can be prosecuted in Russia - if this is true and Russia refuses to do this then they show contempt of international law. Or alternatively Russia has no laws on its books to prosecute Russians who commit crimes in other countries, in which case their contempt for international law is written in to legal codes.

Either way, Russia is showing complete contempt for international law and is protecting a spy against whom an overwhelming amount of evidence shows he committed murder. In that environment it's plainly absurd for Russia to start to demanding that evidence to a legal standard be presented before Britain can be allowed to act.

To be fair, Iron_Captain mentioned how the Russian constitution mandates charging citizens domestically if there is sufficient foreign evidence, rather than extraditing them, and that this is generally conveniently ignored. So the provision is there, but Russia chooses to ignore it.

In addition, the extradition ban also hurts Russians arrested abroad, as they cannot be brought back, so they doleave citizens out to dry when overseas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

At risk of derailing the thread, here is the relevant information:

http://www.aomrc.org.uk/publications/reports-guidance/ukdec-reports-and-guidance/code-practice-diagnosis-confirmation-death/

Essentially, if the patient is confirmed dead (including brain death) by two senior doctors, they can be removed from life support, which is now futile, unless they wished to donate their organs. The legal responsibility lies with the doctors.

The family has no say in this, because they would just be prolonging the lifespan of aspects of the decesased patient's body after death. As it happens, the family has no legal say in an adult patient's care full stop, unless they hold power of attorney for the patient and the patient has lost capacity. However, it is good practice to include the wishes of the family if appropriate, and the family can appeal to the courts over any decision made over care (not over death, this isn't a decision about care, but about the patient's state).

Thank you very much. That puts the Skripal case and him having been in critical condition for so long in perspective (even though he is out by now. Much appreciated.

You're welcome Yeah, it basically tells us he is definitely alive, but likely not conscious, which was confirmed by the reports of him regaining vonsciousness.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 War Drone wrote:
Iron Captain seems to be suspiciously and frighteningly well-informed on the production and delivery of nerve agents.

We might have found the culprit!

I will neither confirm nor deny that I am secretly a mysterious and highly skilled assassin.

Well if you were to be highly skilled assassin you wouldn't be the culprit anyway seeing how incompetent whoever orchestrated this is are. By all accounts effective gas and all they managed to get dead is couple pets. Good job.

If it was Russia they have totally inept staff at work.

tneva82 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 War Drone wrote:
Iron Captain seems to be suspiciously and frighteningly well-informed on the production and delivery of nerve agents.

We might have found the culprit!

I will neither confirm nor deny that I am secretly a mysterious and highly skilled assassin.

Well if you were to be highly skilled assassin you wouldn't be the culprit anyway seeing how incompetent whoever orchestrated this is are. By all accounts effective gas and all they managed to get dead is couple pets. Good job.

If it was Russia they have totally inept staff at work.

The only animals they killed were two guinea pigs, which is quite ironic. The cat even survived but a vet put it to sleep.

Also yes they are totally inept as Sebster already mentioned. The Litvinenko case showed that, its half a miracle that those guys didn't manage to poison themselves more severely. I think the lesson is that the more outlandish the method, the less trained people get.

 Haighus wrote:
To be fair, Iron_Captain mentioned how the Russian constitution mandates charging citizens domestically if there is sufficient foreign evidence, rather than extraditing them, and that this is generally conveniently ignored. So the provision is there, but Russia chooses to ignore it.

In addition, the extradition ban also hurts Russians arrested abroad, as they cannot be brought back, so they doleave citizens out to dry when overseas.

None of that produces a case for Iron_Captain. It acknowledges Russia doesn't recognise or work to the standards of international due process. Which makes a sudden desire to have UK allegations against Russia reach a court's standard of evidence lacking any underlying principle.

sebster wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
To be fair, Iron_Captain mentioned how the Russian constitution mandates charging citizens domestically if there is sufficient foreign evidence, rather than extraditing them, and that this is generally conveniently ignored. So the provision is there, but Russia chooses to ignore it.

In addition, the extradition ban also hurts Russians arrested abroad, as they cannot be brought back, so they doleave citizens out to dry when overseas.

None of that produces a case for Iron_Captain. It acknowledges Russia doesn't recognise or work to the standards of international due process. Which makes a sudden desire to have UK allegations against Russia reach a court's standard of evidence lacking any underlying principle.

I was referring specifically to this bit:

sebster wrote:That's the legalist defense, used to try and blather around the same conclusion. By not having extradition, one of two alternatives is possible. Possibly Russia has laws on the books that crimes committed by Russian in other countries can be prosecuted in Russia - if this is true and Russia refuses to do this then they show contempt of international law. Or alternatively Russia has no laws on its books to prosecute Russians who commit crimes in other countries, in which case their contempt for international law is written in to legal codes.

Either way, Russia is showing complete contempt for international law and is protecting a spy against whom an overwhelming amount of evidence shows he committed murder. In that environment it's plainly absurd for Russia to start to demanding that evidence to a legal standard be presented before Britain can be allowed to act.

Which is not fair when Iron_Captain himself has pointed out earlier in the thread that the Russian government is acting illegally within it's own constitution, and is ignoring the fact that Russia is supposed to try international crimes domestically instead of extraditing, but instead has covered up and ignored the whole thing. He did actually point out that Russia still acted in the wrong in the Litvinenko case, because they ignored their own constitutional requirements and acted illegally. Just that extradition isn't where this occurred.

The rest of the discussion I wasn't commenting on, just that this specific point was unfair, because Iron_Captain had already said what you yourself say here- Russia was acting illegally in the Litvinenko case.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
"horses" is the more simple explanation. "zebras" is a more exotic explanation for the same thing.

Simply repeating your mistakes over and over again isn't debate. Don't timewaste with that nonsense. A horse isn't a more appealing answer because it's a simpler creature because it isn't any more simple than a zebra, they're both plains feeding quadrupeds. The horse is the more appealing answer because horses are a lot more common than zebras.

This is really something, by the way. You're now trying to debate an expression you had literally never heard of until I mentioned it to you. You will debate every minor point, just to throw up more obstacles to assigning guilt to your beloved Russia.

Do you hate me or something? Even when I agree with you you are still trying to disagree with me and trying to create artificial arguments. You are looking for arguments where there are none.

 sebster wrote:

They aren't negatives, they are positives. Disproving positives is far from impossible. We also don't disprove everything, just things that seem credible. Like you would not investigate a possibility that Skripal was assassinated by MI5 on orders of an Irish Leprechaun whose pot of gold Skripal had stolen, but you would investigate a possibility that Skripal had criminal connections and was assassinated by criminal elements rather than state agents

If there was a distinct list of alternative possibilities, then each would be a positive we could tick off one after the next. But instead you've gone with the pretend defense of vaguely listing alternative options, whatever they may be. That's a never ending list, and as soon as one item is proven false you or another Russian partisan can just add another dozen imaginary alternatives. It's a junk process you've invented to pretend you have any interest in actually establishing what happened.

A never-ending list? Where on God's green earth do you get it from that such a list would be never-ending? I said CREDIBLE alternative possibilities. You don't just put every weird conspiracy theory on that list, just things that you, as the investigator, think have a degree of plausibility. Basically, when you investigate something, you do not only investigate the first, most obvious explanation that comes to mind, but you also investigate less obvious, but still plausible explanations. That is pretty standard procedure for investigating anything, and the fact that you are trying to ridicule it shows that you will argue just for the sake of argument, even if what you are arguing is completely ridiculous.
Basically, when you find someone trampled by hooves, you should not immediately jump to the conclusion that it was horses, but you should first look if there aren't any other herds of hoofed animals in the vicinity.
Why do you insist on jumping to conclusions?

 sebster wrote:

Why did Russia refuse to extradite the guy who murdered Litvinenko? Because they had to. Their constitution says they can't extradite him, so they can't extradite. Russia can never extradite anyone, not even if it is the most horrid mass murderer in the world and there is plenty of evidence. It is against the constitution. The Russian government can't extradite people even if it wants to.

That's the legalist defense, used to try and blather around the same conclusion. By not having extradition, one of two alternatives is possible. Possibly Russia has laws on the books that crimes committed by Russian in other countries can be prosecuted in Russia - if this is true and Russia refuses to do this then they show contempt of international law. Or alternatively Russia has no laws on its books to prosecute Russians who commit crimes in other countries, in which case their contempt for international law is written in to legal codes.

Either way, Russia is showing complete contempt for international law and is protecting a spy against whom an overwhelming amount of evidence shows he committed murder. In that environment it's plainly absurd for Russia to start to demanding that evidence to a legal standard be presented before Britain can be allowed to act.

Russia indeed has laws that can be used to prosecute Russians in Russia for crimes committed abroad.
It is also hardly news that Russia has nothing but contempt for international law. Like any powerful country, Russia makes insists on international law only when it is in Russia's favour to do so, and conveniently ignores international laws in all other circumstances.

 Haighus wrote:
Which is not fair when Iron_Captain himself has pointed out earlier in the thread that the Russian government is acting illegally within it's own constitution, and is ignoring the fact that Russia is supposed to try international crimes domestically instead of extraditing, but instead has covered up and ignored the whole thing. He did actually point out that Russia still acted in the wrong in the Litvinenko case, because they ignored their own constitutional requirements and acted illegally. Just that extradition isn't where this occurred.

The rest of the discussion I wasn't commenting on, just that this specific point was unfair, because Iron_Captain had already said what you yourself say here- Russia was acting illegally in the Litvinenko case.

Sure, and I can accept that point. But that point exists within a greater context - if we accept Russia treats international law with contempt, then Russia's demand that evidence must equal a court standard should also be treated with contempt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Do you hate me or something? Even when I agree with you you are still trying to disagree with me and trying to create artificial arguments. You are looking for arguments where there are none.

I don't hate you. I don't know you from a zebra. I just don't like dishonesty. And that is quite different to someone being simply wrong about something, it means someone producing an argument that was designed with a conclusion in mind, which obviously ignored facts and reason to reach that end. If you do a lot of this, I'll end up quoting your posts and pointing that you've done it.

A never-ending list? Where on God's green earth do you get it from that such a list would be never-ending? I said CREDIBLE alternative possibilities. You don't just put every weird conspiracy theory on that list, just things that you, as the investigator, think have a degree of plausibility.

If there was a finite list of alternatives that anyone thinks is credible, you would have listed them. You didn't, because you have no honest interest in seeing some hypothetical list of hypothetical alternatives crossed off. It was blather made up to find some way to avoid blame falling where it belongs.

Basically, when you find someone trampled by hooves, you should not immediately jump to the conclusion that it was horses, but you should first look if there aren't any other herds of hoofed animals in the vicinity.
Why do you insist on jumping to conclusions?

When it is well known that horses are in the area and they have trampled people before, and no other hooved animal were around, then the guy shouting 'but maybe a zebra snuck in to the area dressed as a horse and did this to make the horses look bad?' is obviously arguing in bad faith.

Russia indeed has laws that can be used to prosecute Russians in Russia for crimes committed abroad.
It is also hardly news that Russia has nothing but contempt for international law. Like any powerful country, Russia makes insists on international law only when it is in Russia's favour to do so, and conveniently ignores international laws in all other circumstances.

Exactly. Which is why the request that the UK must provide a court's standard of evidence is obvious bs.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The only animals they killed were two guinea pigs, which is quite ironic. The cat even survived but a vet put it to sleep.

Also yes they are totally inept as Sebster already mentioned. The Litvinenko case showed that, its half a miracle that those guys didn't manage to poison themselves more severely. I think the lesson is that the more outlandish the method, the less trained people get.

Actually, the guinea pigs died because they weren't fed and watered while the house was sealed off as a crime scene. Perhaps the Russian Secret Service's plan was to get the local police to inadvertently kill two pet rodents.

MarkNorfolk wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The only animals they killed were two guinea pigs, which is quite ironic. The cat even survived but a vet put it to sleep.

Also yes they are totally inept as Sebster already mentioned. The Litvinenko case showed that, its half a miracle that those guys didn't manage to poison themselves more severely. I think the lesson is that the more outlandish the method, the less trained people get.

Actually, the guinea pigs died because they weren't fed and watered while the house was sealed off as a crime scene. Perhaps the Russian Secret Service's plan was to get the local police to inadvertently kill two pet rodents.

That is so bad. Idk if I should be sad they died by accident or laugh at the level of incompetence on display. But those rodents were obviously traitors to the motherland that deserved to die! So its good that the Swedish took them out... or the Czechs

 sebster wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Which is not fair when Iron_Captain himself has pointed out earlier in the thread that the Russian government is acting illegally within it's own constitution, and is ignoring the fact that Russia is supposed to try international crimes domestically instead of extraditing, but instead has covered up and ignored the whole thing. He did actually point out that Russia still acted in the wrong in the Litvinenko case, because they ignored their own constitutional requirements and acted illegally. Just that extradition isn't where this occurred.

The rest of the discussion I wasn't commenting on, just that this specific point was unfair, because Iron_Captain had already said what you yourself say here- Russia was acting illegally in the Litvinenko case.

Sure, and I can accept that point. But that point exists within a greater context - if we accept Russia treats international law with contempt, then Russia's demand that evidence must equal a court standard should also be treated with contempt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Do you hate me or something? Even when I agree with you you are still trying to disagree with me and trying to create artificial arguments. You are looking for arguments where there are none.

I don't hate you. I don't know you from a zebra. I just don't like dishonesty. And that is quite different to someone being simply wrong about something, it means someone producing an argument that was designed with a conclusion in mind, which obviously ignored facts and reason to reach that end. If you do a lot of this, I'll end up quoting your posts and pointing that you've done it.

I have never once in all my posts on this forum been dishonest. You are getting more ridiculous with every post you write. How am I being dishonest?

 sebster wrote:

A never-ending list? Where on God's green earth do you get it from that such a list would be never-ending? I said CREDIBLE alternative possibilities. You don't just put every weird conspiracy theory on that list, just things that you, as the investigator, think have a degree of plausibility.

If there was a finite list of alternatives that anyone thinks is credible, you would have listed them. You didn't, because you have no honest interest in seeing some hypothetical list of hypothetical alternatives crossed off. It was blather made up to find some way to avoid blame falling where it belongs.

Or maybe, just maybe, I did not write such a list because I am not an investigator with in-depth knowledge of the case and thus would be an ill judge of what is credible and what not? Or maybe, I did not write such a list because I am lazy and did not feel like going through the effort to write such a list? Or maybe it was a combination of both? Why do you instantly assume bad faith?
Here you are, once again jumping to conclusions. As always.

 sebster wrote:

Basically, when you find someone trampled by hooves, you should not immediately jump to the conclusion that it was horses, but you should first look if there aren't any other herds of hoofed animals in the vicinity.
Why do you insist on jumping to conclusions?

When it is well known that horses are in the area and they have trampled people before, and no other hooved animal were around, then the guy shouting 'but maybe a zebra snuck in to the area dressed as a horse and did this to make the horses look bad?' is obviously arguing in bad faith.

That does require checking the area for the presence of horses and zebras though, and establishing that horses are indeed there while zebras are not. And it requires establishing that horses have a history of trampling people where zebras do not. If you don't do that, you might as well assume it was a herd of Quaggas, because that explanation would be equally based on nothing. If you conclude something, it must be based on something, and that something needs to be credible. Because the guy arguing that it was horses, even though no horses were ever seen in the area, is also obviously arguing in bad faith.

 sebster wrote:

Russia indeed has laws that can be used to prosecute Russians in Russia for crimes committed abroad.
It is also hardly news that Russia has nothing but contempt for international law. Like any powerful country, Russia makes insists on international law only when it is in Russia's favour to do so, and conveniently ignores international laws in all other circumstances.

Exactly. Which is why the request that the UK must provide a court's standard of evidence is obvious bs.

It is not bs to provide a court's standard of evidence for a court procedure. In fact, this is required. But the UK would waste its time in presenting such evidence to Russia. The perpetrators could be walking around with huge glowing neon signs above their heads saying "I did it", and Russia still would demand more evidence.

TFW when Sebster truly regrets explaining an idiom.

 Ouze wrote:
TFW when Sebster truly regrets explaining an idiom.

I think we can certainly establish the presence of severly beaten dead horses

How do you know they aren't dead okapi?

Well, it's like that old truism: when you hear endless pro-russian spin, you think hippos, not dead okapi.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43733765

Russian media filter:
British government tell Yulia Skripa not to speak to Russian officials.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43733765

Russian media filter:
British government tell Yulia Skripa not to speak to Russian officials.

Nope. Kidnapped:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201804111063428934-skripal-hospital-base-protection/

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Yulia Skripal, who had been discharged from a hospital in the UK town of Salisbury after a poisoning attack, was brought to another hospital located on the territory of a military base and is recovering under armed protection, The Sun newspaper, citing its sources.
The Russian embassy in the UK is concerned with the fact that Britain refuses to give it information about Yulia Skripal's location, wishes and actual health status, fearing that the country has embarked on a course towards her isolation in order to hide an important witness. It also lambasted unsubstantiated statements of the British side that she refuses to meet with representatives of the Russian consulate.

It gets more and more insane. I can’t help feeling Russians buy a lot of this because they see it as normal government behaviour.

Steve steveson wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43733765

Russian media filter:
British government tell Yulia Skripa not to speak to Russian officials.

Nope. Kidnapped:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201804111063428934-skripal-hospital-base-protection/

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Yulia Skripal, who had been discharged from a hospital in the UK town of Salisbury after a poisoning attack, was brought to another hospital located on the territory of a military base and is recovering under armed protection, The Sun newspaper, citing its sources.
The Russian embassy in the UK is concerned with the fact that Britain refuses to give it information about Yulia Skripal's location, wishes and actual health status, fearing that the country has embarked on a course towards her isolation in order to hide an important witness. It also lambasted unsubstantiated statements of the British side that she refuses to meet with representatives of the Russian consulate.

It gets more and more insane. I can’t help feeling Russians buy a lot of this because they see it as normal government behaviour.

Pretty sure most Russians understand perfectly well that she does not want to meet with Russian officials. If my government just tried to murder me I also wouldn't be so eager to meet them.

Ouze wrote:TFW when Sebster truly regrets explaining an idiom.

Maybe he would not have regretted it if he hadn't been so fractious over it. I was agreeing with him. It takes some special skill to get in an argument with someone who agrees with you...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I have never once in all my posts on this forum been dishonest. You are getting more ridiculous with every post you write. How am I being dishonest?

You accept Russia ignores international legal standards in failing to extradite a man who has been credibly accused of murder, but you also demand Britain provide a legal standard of evidence before accusing Russia of the crime. It is plainly dishonest to accept Russia can pick and choose when the law should apply, dependent on what suits its national interests at the time.

Or maybe, just maybe, I did not write such a list because I am not an investigator with in-depth knowledge of the case and thus would be an ill judge of what is credible and what not? Or maybe, I did not write such a list because I am lazy and did not feel like going through the effort to write such a list?

You think investigators should dedicate their time to refuting the alternatives that you don't know about and won't list. Yeah, that's called bad faith arguing.

Why do you instantly assume bad faith?

Because there is no assumption. There is simply a description of how you attempt to debate.

That does require checking the area for the presence of horses and zebras though, and establishing that horses are indeed there while zebras are not. And it requires establishing that horses have a history of trampling people where zebras do not. If you don't do that, you might as well assume it was a herd of Quaggas, because that explanation would be equally based on nothing. If you conclude something, it must be based on something, and that something needs to be credible. Because the guy arguing that it was horses, even though no horses were ever seen in the area, is also obviously arguing in bad faith.

Because you're arguing in bad faith, it didn't occur to you how silly this is. The point of the saying is that such things are already known. It is known that horses are common in the area, and zebras are not. That's the whole point of the saying. You missed this because you're not trying to understand anything, you're just trying to invent any nonsense you can to drag this out, so you can pretend that there's sensible doubt about Russia's involvement in the attack.

This leads you to attempt to try and argue about the meaning of a saying you'd never heard before, and that you clearly have a lot of trouble understanding.

It is not bs to provide a court's standard of evidence for a court procedure. In fact, this is required.

It isn't required. You make things up because you're not honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
TFW when Sebster truly regrets explaining an idiom.

I'm quite pleased at my use of the saying, I really like it and its not one that suits the circumstances very often.

It's the bit where I engaged with Iron_Captain that's caused me some regrets. Especially because earlier in the thread there was some other Russian guy, and I showed his arguments and claimed facts were false, saw him claim some truly ridiculous nonsense, and I just said that was it, not bothering with you anymore.

And then a couple of weeks later I pile back in with a different Russian. The only thing worse than a failure to learn is to learn and then regress.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think we can certainly establish the presence of severly beaten dead horses

Ha!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43741140
[OPCW] Inspectors back UK in spy poisoning row

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/chemical-watchdog-confirms-novichok-poisoned-sergei-skripal/ar-AAvNJNl?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=iehp

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43733765

Russian media filter:
British government tell Yulia Skripa not to speak to Russian officials.

Nope. Kidnapped:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201804111063428934-skripal-hospital-base-protection/

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Yulia Skripal, who had been discharged from a hospital in the UK town of Salisbury after a poisoning attack, was brought to another hospital located on the territory of a military base and is recovering under armed protection, The Sun newspaper, citing its sources.
The Russian embassy in the UK is concerned with the fact that Britain refuses to give it information about Yulia Skripal's location, wishes and actual health status, fearing that the country has embarked on a course towards her isolation in order to hide an important witness. It also lambasted unsubstantiated statements of the British side that she refuses to meet with representatives of the Russian consulate.

It gets more and more insane. I can’t help feeling Russians buy a lot of this because they see it as normal government behaviour.

The maskirovka is unravelling internationally, however for 'captive audiences' the rhetoric is still valid.