UK Government doubles down on Salisbury; Part One: highly trained Russian assassins adopt British terror patsy practice
In great news for people who would hate to realise that their Government – which is to say the entire apparatus of the State – routinely deceives them to elicit their support and submission, two suspects have been named in the so-called poisoning case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, both identified as being Russian nationals, both probably using fake names, have been charged in absentia “in relation to” the attempted murder of the now vanished colonel and his daughter. Theresa May said that the men were “officers from the Russian military intelligence service” and that the mission “was not a rogue operation [but]… was almost certainly… approved… at a senior level of the Russian state”.
The Metropolitan Police released stills from CCTV footage that showed two men at Salisbury train station, and in the streets (supposedly) of Salisbury, reconnoitring on Saturday 3rd March, and carrying out their mission on the following day. Also issued into the public domain were the suspects’ passport photos, and other CCTV stills of the men arriving into and leaving the country via Gatwick and Heathrow airports respectively, as evidence to support the claim of Russian origins.
Case closed, isn’t it?
Except for the fact that all the imagery produced by the Met Police is not proof that two men, being called Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov – though they might as well be the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy – did anything other than visit Salisbury. Moreover, in the many years that the author has been observing and writing about terror incidents, he has learnt that CCTV footage cannot be trusted because its content is not necessarily taking place when the Government says it is. Furthermore, when CCTV evidence is presented as a still image (and is not supported by the moving footage from which it is taken) then it is even less trustworthy, because false timestamps can be superimposed without much effort. In that way, the event being shown in a picture can be made to appear to have happened at some other time than when it actually occurred.
There is, on the other hand, a vital piece of information that we can glean from the adventures of the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy in Salisbury as captured by CCTV (stills), and as envisioned by the Met Police, which is this: it appears that in order to travel to the home of Sergei Skripal, and apply nerve agent to the door handle of its front door, two highly trained Russian intelligence operatives abandoned any notion about concealing their approach, and had no inclination to disguise their presence in Salisbury so that blame could not be tracked back to their country of origin. Instead, what they did was to adopt the practice, now well-used by British terror patsies, of taking public transport and meandering through public places, in broad daylight, to be caught at every opportunity by surveillance cameras. Of course, British terror patsies are made to do this by their handlers expressly to incriminate themselves. If the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were really Russian intelligence operatives, ordered on a mission from on high in the Russian state, wouldn’t they hire a car, drive straight to Skripal’s doorstep, and paste their target over with Novichok at a time of day (meaning at night) that offered less chance of being noticed by nosy passers-by and neighbours?
There is one piece of evidence – and one piece alone – that the Metropolitan Police says it has in its possession, and that links Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov to what it maintains happened in Salisbury, and this piece of evidence is a sample of Novichock purportedly found in a room in the City Stay Hotel in Bow Road, East London. Maybe the CCTV should have shown Alexander and Ruslan holding hands as they strolled around the Wiltshire cathedral city, because this one room – and the police statement is quite clear about this – was shared by the two men when they stayed at the hotel on the nights of the 2nd and 3rd of March. The following is a pertinent extract from the statement abovementioned, released on September 5th – what does the reader make of it?
On 4 May 2018, tests were carried out in the hotel room where the suspects had stayed. A number of samples were tested at DSTL at Porton Down. Two swabs showed contamination of Novichok at levels below that which would cause concern for public health. A decision was made to take further samples from the room as a precautionary measure, including in the same areas originally tested, and all results came back negative. We believe the first process of taking swabs removed the contamination, so low were the traces of Novichok in the room.
Following these tests, experts deemed the room was safe and that it posed no risk to the public.
How about that? The tests for contamination of Novichok also cleaned the room from contamination. How very considerate of the Russian boys to leave samples exactly where the police could find them (and yet in places where hotel patrons wouldn’t be exposed to them in the two months between the 4th days of March and May), and in exactly the correct quantities so that a swab could lift them entirely out of the environment – leaving the room Novichok-free (and who knows, possibly piney-fresh, toilet seat down) for other hotel patrons yet to come who did not need, according to police, to be alerted to the remote possibility and danger of developing a dose of poisoning by nerve agent.
How truly unbelievable it all is. Isn’t it more likely that the police claim to have found Novichok at the hotel is a complete fairy tale? Isn’t it more likely that the City Stay Hotel was Novichok-free not because of the miraculous activity of police forensics, but because it was never introduced in the first place.
With the one piece of evidence that incriminates the so-called Russian intelligence operatives turning out to be incredibly dubious, what emerges very clearly is that these latest developments in the Metropolitan Police’s investigation into the Skripal incident merely constitute an escalation of Government gaslighting, and nothing much more. Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov are Thomas Mairs and Ahmed Hassans that got away so that the involvement of the Russian state doesn’t have to be proved in a court trial, but only alleged – and in that regard, things go on as before. Nothing changes except the complexity of the tangle of talking points so that everyone is distracted from the reality of a naked emperor, and the fundamental truth which is that the Skripal incident was and is a hoax. And for that purpose, the reader should observe with interest how everyone’s favourite Skripal-incident blogger-experts contribute to the maintenance of the Establishment narrative. For instance, it has been noticed by a particularly expert and popular blogger that the so-called Russian so-called assassins arrived on the ground in Salisbury (to paint a front door with Novichok) only after the Skripals had first left home. The big puzzle that people were therefore being invited to invest energy in was a question of how the authorities could possibly account for a bolted door to an empty stable? And it’s all part and parcel of the wild goose chase.
There is no solid evidence in the public domain that the Skripals were ever in Salisbury on 4th March. A CCTV sighting of a car said to belong to Sergei, the driver conveniently obscured from view, is not proof that he and/or his daughter were being conveyed to a certain destination at a certain time. Hearsay about the Skripals to place them in Salisbury at the same time as a couple were supposedly found incoherent and incapacitated on a park bench is for the naïve and those who cling to pre-911 reality. The Skripals cannot even be shown to have left their house on the fateful day, and as such it matters little when so-called Russian agents might have daubed nerve agent on their door handle.
Where we are much better rewarded spending our time and focusing our attention is on the second movement of the Skripal affair which primarily concerns the activities of Charlie Rowley. The next instalment of this short series will deal with how these new developments affect the framework of understanding that we’ve thus far constructed, here at FBEL, regarding Rowley, his perfume bottle, and its relation to the poisoning material that the Government says killed Rowley’s supposed girlfriend, Dawn Sturgess.
