Chapter XIII: France and the Salisbury Affair Part 1

1 How I left Russia

1 Leaving Russia

As I related in the last chapter, the governments of Russia and the United Kingdom did a deal with the British government whereby my bank account was cut off and I was left with less than 100 euros. It had been thought that, given the apparent set of choices, I would have to naturally go to the British embassy where as it would turn out Sir Laurie Bristow, the former director of national security was ambassador.

My choices were as follows

  1. I did not have a visa and could have been prosecuted were I attempt to leave Russia by crossing the frontier. This was even though the law said that I could leave as I had the documentation which showed that I had attempted to claim asylum within 24 hours but I was told by several people that I should not risk this because the Russian authorities do not apply the law. I was not willing to risk this option
  2. Trying a foreign embassy other than that of the United Kingdom. I attempted this by going to the
    1. German embassy who told me to go to the British embassy,
    2. French embassy who refused to even speak to me and told me to go to the British embassy
    3. European Union embassy where I was greeted by a rude Frenchman who told me to the British embassy
    4. Spanish embassy where I was unable to relay my concerns.
    5. Cuban embassy who were unable to help because I did not have any money.
  3. To go to Belarus. I had been informed by a member of staff at the hostel that I would be deported to the United Kingdom because I had broken the law by crossing the border with Russia. In any case, one needed identification showing that one had a visa in order to use public transport in order to get to Belarus.
  4. I was unable to receive money given that one needs the appropriate documentation and the asylum people were not willing to provide this.

I therefore, given these rather unpalatable set of options elected to risk going back to Belarus where I hoped it might perhaps be possible to explain to them my situation, as a result of which they might let me through to Poland or to one of the Baltic states.

Given the need for documentation in order to use public transport, I elected to use a car sharing facility so that I might go to Minsk. Before I had got in the car, a Russian policeman approached me and I initially thought “that’s it” but he smiled at me and told me not to lose my bag. Moreover when I got in the car, apart from the fact that I felt a little under the weather, had not slept very well and to add to my concerns, there was a Russian policewoman. I did not explain my situation to her and she did not ask many questions, no doubt because like the policeman who told me to look after my bag, she presumed that I would be deported to the United Kingdom.

She was however more than a little friendly with me and who got progressively more drunk and for some strange reason wanted to marry me. One could sense that although there would indeed be a decision to deport me to the United Kingdom that the authorities of Russia were not entirely sure what would happen.

I met with the authorities of Belarus which included members of the KGB who, as had been expected, informed me that I would absolutely have to go back to the United Kingdom and that I would have to stay in one of their cells until I paid for my own ticket. It was a KGB decision, because whenever I started asking the person who had been assigned to look after me whether the KGB were involved, he started talking in Russian and would not answer the question. It was also an FSB decision given the fact that they work in concert.

They were it should be stated kind to me, much kinder than the American authorities when I claimed asylum and fed me actual food and let me smoke. I was put in a cell which although it wasn’t very nice was at least my own cell and was very green.

I came up with a plan to avoid going back to the United Kingdom. In the morning I rang my parents and told them to buy the cheapest ticket which naturally would involve a break of journey. I judged correctly that the authorities of Belarus would not be able to afford to accompany on the plane and indeed they did not do so. They expressed some qualms but I reassured them.

My plan was near botched however when the border guard at the airport who were rather unhappy at the break of journey and delayed me for a while. I reassured them however that I was intending to go to the United Kingdom and they let me go on my way

I thus arrived in Kiev which, despite the fact that I had no money or food and had not slept very well and would not sleep, holds some very fond memories. I had not only managed to get out of Russia but had brought some valuable information with me and it would turns out that that information was far more valuable than I had considered it to be at the time.

 

2 My attempt to inform the American embassy in Kiev

I did attempt to warn the American embassy upon my arrival in Kiev and went as far as to walk all the way from the station to their embassy at an ungodly hour. My treatment however was perhaps not dissimilar to that of Anthony Murray ‘Peter’ Allan in that I had been staying in a hotel which had bed which were not all not unlike those at Colditz and I was to all intents and purposes a prisoner in Russia. More importantly however, unlike Mr Allan, I had certain information which I felt I should pass on.

I had elected to go to the American embassy because I knew that if I were to continue my journey onto the United Kingdom, the British would not listen and would do something like poison me, as I forewarned my parents would be the case, given what had occurred to me in the past. Indeed there was an attempt to incapacitate me in Kiev by the British and they would indeed a couple of months later poison the Skripals.

To that end, after ringing the American embassy who seemed a bit disinterested, I sold my phone due to my lack of funds (my family who were unaware of the situation were very unhappy about the break of journey and were unwilling at that stage to buy a ticket to Paris) so that I could go to the city center. I then caught a bus and walked all the way from the station to their embassy in temperatures of minus 3, arrived and was told to come back when they were open.

When I came back during daylight hours, I attempted to explain my situation but was made to wait for the best part of an hour in the freezing cold before they eventually let me in. As is often the case with France and the United States, they decided in advance what they wanted to believe and closed their ears to any counter-evidence from the outset.

They were uninterested in what I had to say, did not acknowledge the fact that I came from the same college as Gervase Cowell and the director of national security, Johnathan Allen, things which should have let them to consider that my evidence was worth listening to and asked me to write about any impending threats of which I was aware. They were uninterested in any present threats.

Moreover It was obvious that it was going to be somewhat difficult to write anything given that my hands had frozen outside whilst they had kept me waiting and given the fact that they would not allow me to use a computer. My handwriting is in any case not very good at the best of times

I attempted however to tell them that the issue of non-linear warfare was not just a present threat but an impending one but

  1. They told me that they did not want to any explanation (they did not have an understanding of non-linear warfare) and they would not take account of the fact that I could not write and had written badly. They were uninterested and were going through the procedural motions. The fact is if they had been interested, they would have, as I had requested, supplied a computer so I could at least type.
  2. They were uninterested in the fact that I had got out of Russia, the reasons why and what I had discovered. They were unwilling to help with my situation as part of which I offered to write what I knew in exchange for board and lodgings which given what I knew and given the fact that Christopher Steele charged them $100,000 dollars seemed entirely reasonable.

They therefore bid me good-day. It was not the case that I was attempting to sell disinformation on the part of Russia because the information I had was truthful and something which was beneficial for Russia in that it was extremely embarrassing for the British government even if it involved the revelation of infiltration. An apt comparison would be selling a computer company some duff hard drives and then telling the computer company what a waste of space they are. The fact that the information was true was proven by amongst other things the fact that

  1. The British government resorted to the Salisbury “nerve agent” attack in response to my writing of a dossier.
  2. The British government colluded with Russia with respect to the whole Russiagate nonsense.

One could make a general comment about the United States and their intelligence agencies. The unfortunate fact is that they commit the most cardinal of errors with respect to investigations.

Instead of looking for evidence in the first instance and reaching a conclusion based on that evidence, as is standard, they reach a conclusion in the first instance and then look for evidence to support that conclusion whilst ignoring  from the outset any evidence which does not fit that predetermined conclusion.

Looking at matters from a psychological point of view, one can say that, as a whole, their intelligence agencies as a whole suffer from a global processing bias as opposed to a local processing bias.

In other words they look at the overview and then the details as opposed to looking at the details and then forming an overview. Such a bias does rather explain the conclusions which was reached in the 9/11 inquiry that the intelligence agencies had “difficulty joining the dots” in that this is dependent upon having a local processing bias.

This is more than apparent from the above and is no doubt due to the fact that they disregard those who have a local processing bias, which tends to be the neurodiverse and those who have a higher level of perceptual reasoning.

Had they listened then it would have certainly been the case that they Salisbury affair and everything that proceeded from that would not have occurred and that moreover the allegations of Russian collusion would have been discounted. Moreover they would have been aware of infiltration and the reasons why the allegations about collusion had been put forth by the British government.

No doubt, given the way they tend to be, they will get defensive now and claim that I had done some thing wrong but then this is nonsense given that I was on their territory and they had every opportunity to question me but showed the greatest disinterest.

I found the lack of intelligence of those at the American embassy strangely amusing particularly given the fact that they constantly complain about 9/11 and do not appear to have learnt the lessons from that terrorist attack.

 

3 My attempt to inform the British embassy in Kiev

I would not sleep that night and would spend the next day attempting to contact various embassies to no avail, most notably the German one but they refused to listen to my situation and what I knew.

I eventually went to the British embassy later on and indeed, as I suspected would be the case, it turned out to be a waste of time but an interesting waste of time nonetheless

Even though the light was on and there was a camera outside and they knew the unfortunate significance of who I was and what I might know, they did not deign to answer. It is not as they do not assist people in an emergency either even when it is out of hours.

Instead, they arranged for a woman to jump out at me when I was walking back towards back the station and to encourage me to go a place called the Chacha bar where she worked on the pretext of being offered some free coffee.

When I went to the cafe however they stated that only free alcohol was available. One can conclude it was the FCO given that

  1. It was nearby.
  2. It was a Georgian cafe, a country which has rather strong links with the UK and it just so happens that this is my name.
  3. The attempt to lure me downstairs to drink alcohol was part of a wish to drug me legally by people who would have been aware of who I was. Had they just been attempting to drug me, they would have put a substance in the coffee which I drank but they could not do so given my phone call to my parents.
  4. Alcohol is rather more expensive than coffee and as such this shows that there was an obvious motive which was to drug me legally.
  5. I was rather under the weather, had no money and had not slept for 40 hours so the offer of coffee would have no doubt have been thought to be tempting.
  6. If it had been the British, they would obviously not felt the need only to resort to a lure and would have just done something.

It is not as if there is the slightest bit of interest on the part of the FCO or that they could claim somehow that I had done something wrong in that

  1. They attempted to drug me instead of going through the standard procedure of listening or talking to me.
  2. I have subsequently emailed the FCO as well as the IPT to ask whether they had some issue with me which they might wish to discuss and which would explain why they felt legally authorised to harass and hack my computer. I have received no reply.
  3. I visited the British consulate in Istanbul. After from trying to hack the computer I was using to look up some details for a document which was need for Turkish citizenship, the officer who had to make me swear that the information I had provided was true looked rather peeved at me (probably because of the lack of success at the hacking) then apostilised the document. There was not one single expression of interest in the fact that I might know things or indeed an attempt to state that I had done something wrong, as they might no doubt attempt to claim.

 

4 What happened next

After the failure of my attempts to warn various authorities and to seek assistance, I decided to stay at Kiev station and to think what to do next.

It was not as if I had been attempting to “sell” the information because I needed to secure assistance in that I would still attempt to pass on the information when I returned to my parents in France.

My stay at Kiev station and indeed my experience in Kiev is one of my fondest memories.

I cannot describe the elation which I felt at not only having managed to get out of Russia but also having brought information which was valuable (and considerably more so than I had thought at the time). Being awarded a place at Cambridge does not compare in any way and I do have an understand of how the escapes from Colditz must have felt upon reaching Switzerland.

For that reason, the fact that I had no money, had no food, had not slept and had nowhere to stay did not matter and to add to the sense of elation I felt, I derived much amusement from and grinned at the considerable idiocy of the staff at the American embassy. It was enough just to sit and I watched a Doctor Who story called Caves of Androzani and just to bask in a warm glow of satisfaction. It is a shame that I had noone to share my experience with.

After a while however, when I managed to secure some credits for the wifi there, my parents said that they would help get me back to France. I did not sleep during that night because one was not allowed to and I had nowhere to sleep.

It should moreover the case in such a place that a few people enquired what I was doing during the night and indeed in the morning. One of those people who was rather aggressive informed me that the police from England had cometo “discuss me case” but they were obviously told to get lost.

The next day my parents attempted to make arrangements to send some money via Western Union and there were mysterious “mistakes” which meant that I did not receive my money in that a different destination for that money was somehow on the system. These mistakes would occur on the Monday and indeed in Chşna

Eventually utterly exhausted and rather famished I eventually found a hotel which allowed me to stay over the weekend and to pay on the Monday as part of which they kept hold of my passport. When I attempted on the Monday to get the money which had been transferred through Western Union however, there were for some reason additional difficulties with the system. These difficulties with the money transfer are not inconsistent with

  1. Similar problems I experienced in China and which occurred due to interference on the part of the FCO
  2. The fact that the FCO had attempted to make arrangements for me to go to the UK and wished to leave me with only that option.
  3. The fact that that is what Russia wanted as well.
  4. The cancellation of both my swirl card and my Lloyds card.

I eventually got the money however, no doubt because the Americans had noticed a problem with their western union system, bought a ticket to Paris and left

.

5 My attempt to warn the Quai D’Orsai

Upon my eventual arrival in France, to my surprise, I was not met by any member of the French authorities apart from some passport checks for people who were disembarking from the plane. I therefore a couple of weeks later would attempt to inform the French government of what I had discovered as part of a visit to the École militaire and then at the Quai D’Orsai (which is the French foreign office).

They were rather like the Americans unwilling to listen and no doubt for the same reasons. The fact is that noone in authority wished to meet me and I only encountered someone at the École militaire who told me I was in the wrong place and should go to the Quai D’Orsai where I only encountered a security guard who told me to email. I did not receive a reply to my email stating that I wished to meet.

I elected therefore to write a dossier outlining what had occurred and what I knew but as a result of my writing of this dossier, the British government elected to carry out the  “nerve agent” attack in Salisbury. In short this was as I shall explain, because of their need to give the impression that the Russian threat was external rather than internal

As part of this, the unfortunate fact was that the European Union showed (as it historically has done) and continues to show that it is run by cowards who were not only uninterested in the truth of what happened and who were more interested in showing the fact that they needed to depend upon British defence and intelligence..  One could rightly state that they are expressing “concern” about what is occurring in Belarus due to

  1. The fact that such protests and the highlighting of them occurs due to likely interference on the part of the United Kingdom and others
  2. A need to detract from issues which pertain to the fact that it is unwilling to defend itself and act in a sovereign manner when it comes to intelligence and defence.
  3. Their record of doing everything and everything possible to detract from their responsibilities in this regards and expending an extraordinary effort in doing so.

You will understand why I cannot bear such people and their cowardice given what I had been through and given their record in such matters.

 

2 The Salisbury Affair Part 1

1 Why the attack occurred and why it was carried out by the United Kingdom

1 Why the attack occurred

1 It occurred because I mentioned that I was writing a dossier

I outlined the fact the fact that I was writing a dossier which I was going to perhaps sell to the French government which pertained to Russia-gate, infiltration and Doctor Oliver in January and February of 2018. I remarked upon the fact on my twitter account which like Facebook was inevitably being read by GCHQ as you can see from the following screenshots

The Foreign office decided to appoint

  1. Appoint another individual from St Catharine’s college as Director for national security, a Simon Shercliff
  2. To interfere in the writing of the dossier by denial of service attacks and so on which led to a complaint to the investigatory powers tribunal
  3. To carry out the attack in Salisbury as part of which, amongst other things Mr Shercliff who had responsibility for the information research department and the DSMA committee engaged in media operations which consisted of
    1. Spreading stories which concurred with the opinion of the foreign office and to the United Kingdom with regards to what had happened
    2. Suppressing stories which did not concur with the opinion of the foreign office and to the United Kingdom with regards to what had happened
    3. Ensuring that the only anti establishment satirical broadcasts, Have I got news for you and the Now show
      1. Were fronted by members of the college with Jeremy Paxman hosting the former and Steve Punt hosting the later.
      2. Broadcast views which were not anti establishment

I should wish to emphasize however that I would not discover until a year or so later that Mr Shercliff was employed at the FCO nor indeed other people from the college.

The fact that it occurred in response to the writing of the dossier and that that dossier is true is proven by the fact that

  1. The fact that the foreign office felt the need to resort to hacking and other forms of harassment which affected both myself and my family, due to the effect it had upon myself (as a result of my ignorance as to who was responsible) something which had an effect upon my mother who was concerned as a indirect result of which her cancer returned leading to her death.
  2. They would certainly not have bothered to involve so many members of the college in the media operation had it been the case that the summary of my dossier which I had given on twitter and which pertained to the college, russiagate and infiltration was in some way inaccurate. If this had been the case, they would have simply dismissed the report on the basis certain details being inaccurate meant that doubt could be cast upon the rest.
  3. They colluded with Russia with respect to the Russigate nonsense
  4. They have past form
    1. Members of the college have a record in this respect as one can see from the fact that Sir Arthur Bonsall helped to conceal infiltration and corruption within GCHQ, something which Jock Kane complained aabout and which was confirmed by the Geoffrey Prime affair.
    2. Such a policy of assassination in order to conceal infiltration which had occurred under his watch occurred in the case of Airey Naeve.
    3. Gareth Williams was murdered to conceal the fact that he was aware that Doctor Oliver amongst others worked for Russia.
    4. When Johnathan Allen of St Catharines college was director for national security, they resorted to accusing Michael Flynn of being a security risk. They did so in response to my revelation of corruption which they felt would lead to investigations into infiltration given the fact that I had made mention of the fact that Doctor Oliver had worked for Russia
  5. They thought that they could get away with it. Given past form, it was felt that myself and others would not be able to or not bother to prove the fact that members of the college had been to certain important position as a consequence of which it would not be possible for myself and others to find proof of the reasons why the attack had occurred.
  6. Simon Shercliff has past form in concealment of criminal activities by the state. He was an ambassador and where he talked about peace in a country (Yemen) which was and is being bombed by a country (Saudi Arabia) to whom the British government sold arms. He would have known about this given the fact that he had been employed in sensitive positions within the foreign office.
  7. The attack itself and the fact that the evidence in relation to this, proves that it was carried out by the United Kingdom and that there was a media operation to conceal the obvious point that the Russian state was not involved.

The interference from the FCO lead to me writing a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal whereupon 2 days later, on March the 4th, the Salisbury attack occurred. This date is significant for another reason which I shall explain later and it is likely that that date will have had been predetermined on the basis that the attack would occur on that date were I to continue writing the dossier and not necessarily because I complained to the IPT.

They reason they chose to go so far in this instance is clear. They knew that the information was not only true but that it would affect the United Kingdom at rather crucial stage in history. They felt that the dossier would not have only affected the special relationship but also the relationship with the intelligence agencies of Europe during a period when the United Kingdom was negotiating a post-Brexit treaty.

Indeed this is one of the reasons why they were so intent upon stopping Brexit. The fact that my revelation of their plots in this respect further forestalled their efforts in this respect in that by taking away their cover, it was more difficult for them to proceed. Their position was thus already felt to be weak and the revelation of infiltration and indeed the truth behind Russiagate would add to such difficulties.

As such they were forced, as they saw it, into rather desperate measures.

I had stated in a previous version that Dr Oliver was accessing my site and was “signalling” for me to stop which is only inaccurate in so far as someone was doing it on his behalf.

 

2 Why they were not covering for double agents

The claim that this attack has been carried out to protect Dr Oliver as a double agent is so utterly ludicrous that it is hardly seemed worth mentioning. This possibility is frankly comical because

  1. Dr Oliver drank a considerable amount of alcohol, could not keep information secret and had a well known reputation in that regards.
  2. The college and GCHQ both have a reputation for concealing infiltration as part of which they did not resort to the usage of double agents

 

3 It wasn’t the only reaction to my statements online

I remarked upon the fact that Russia had spies in its embassy on March the 9th on my Dacebook page because it would seem inevitable that that’s what diplomats do, especially American ones who had 750 in their Embassy in Moscow alone in 2008.

Here is a copy of that statement. Screenshot from 2018-09-18 20-05-37.png The observant will of course have noticed that the quote is taken from the following clip and that I was mocking them

Five days later, the British decide to expel some “spies” and to use this as a pretext to claim some credit for spurring others to action

  1. in order to conceal their embarrassment and fear of my complaint which concerned their interference into the writing of my dossier.
  2. Because it is low hanging fruit, as it were and it appears as if they are taking action when they are not.
  3. To restore their damaged reputation in Europe

Given everything else and the nature of the surveillance of Facebook and indeed myself by GCHQ and others, it is implausible to suggest that there is no relation between such statements by myself and actions on their part.

 

4. A small comment about the foreign office and the cabinet office

The people who run the foreign office and cabinet office are traitors to the United Kingdom. They will and as Jock Kane pointed out go to any lengths to conceal an initial mistake. In this case, this pertains to Russian infiltration which damages the security of the United Kingdom and the passing on of information which damaged the interests and security of the United States. You will note the following comment from the permanent secretary who interesting comes from the same college where Sir Richard Dearlove of WMD fame was master and it is worth commenting

Three points:

  1. The OPCW report was in April where they did not identify the substance used and where they merely agreed with the report from Porton Down which did not state that Novichok had been employed
  2. He is referring to the successful attempt to persuade other countries to vote in favour of motion which ensured that the OPCW would be able to investigate who was responsible for a chemical weapons attack which was not previously within their remit.
  3. This is a poor reasoning and evidence of someone who knowingly lies. What he is stating is as follows “I know the Russians were reponsible because we persuaded the OPCW to determine who was responsible for chemical weapons attacks in future but not in this case

This is a response to the tweet from Old MacDonald who apparently has a farm with lots of animals, given that the intellectual faculties of those within the department are obviously lacking or perhaps non-existent.

Three points

  1. The world did not listen. Your allies blindly obeyed you
  2. You indeed made the case but it was on the basis of obvious lies which only “persuaded” your allies. Since that period, new evidence has since come to light which shows that you, your department and the British government are professional liars and criminals.
  3. You respond to something which clearly proves that old macdonald does not have any evidence and has to resort to lying. In doing so you show that you are a liar
  4. I think you must have broken the record for the time in which it takes a head of MI6 to resort to backing something equivalent to the weapons of mass destruction scam. You aren’t even in post yet
  5. If you lie about a chemical weapons attack in the UK which was carried out by the UK then one can obviously call into question your other claims about Syria
  6. You did so as I was writing about Geoffrey Prime and infiltration and it would be sensible to state that this is being monitored. When I attempted to post my internet connection went down. You can see the time of my eventual post 3 minutes later. In doing so you prove the point which Jock Kane made and which I have made with respect to infiltration and the way in which you go to any lenghts to conceal it
  7. Here is my internet going down
  8. You clearly aren’t very bright and as others have often complained of late, it says a great deal about the intelligence of people who go to Oxford. The clue is in the title of the organization which are shortly going to be responsible for  which is called the Secret Intelligence Service. The words “Secret” and “Intelligence” do not apply in this case but then again this might be expected from a government department which decided to employ someone called Mr R Moore as an intelligence officer for however many years it was.
  9. You are right that there is no hiding place for people who carry out chemical weapons attacks on British soil particularly when they are the British government. Others will in future take note of the reliability and trustworthiness of yourself and your organisation, particularly given the fact that the intelligence relationship between the United Kingdom and its “allies” is apparently going to be somewhat weaker from the 1st of January next year.

In many ways, as was the case with brexit, this is the fault of David Cameron who took the decision, as part of the policy of austerity, to cut defence and to rely increasingly upon the intelligence agencies. This inevitably meant that in terms of application of foreign policy, the ministry of defence, which has its faults, became subordinate to the foreign office. In other words an Oxbridge clique who don’t know the reality of life and have a disdain for others are in control whereas those who actually do the dirty work are subordinate to them.

When you hear the government talking about the Russian “threat” in the Ukraine, in Europe and elsewhere, they do so to ensure that Britain has influence in Europe by detracting from the considerably more serious issue of Russian infiltration of British intelligence. The “threat” in Ukraine is to be frank not an issue for Europe and interference in the EU is not a problem.

 

2 Why the investigation was fraudulent and why only the United Kingdom could have been responsible

1 Why the substance can only have been applied at the park

  1. This is proven by the length of time it took for the Dawn Sturgess to succumb to the nerve agent during the Amesbury incident and by the seriousness of the effect. Charlie Rowley states that Dawn Sturgess fell unconscious within fifteen minutes of applying what she had thought was a perfume. Given that the Skripals also fell ill from the same substance with the same effect whereby they also fell unconscious, they too fell ill within approximately 15 minutes.
    1. The reason why Charlie Rowley did not fall ill within 15 minutes is because he was the only person who washed the substance off his hands upon its accidental application. None of the others had the opportunity of doing so.
    2. The reason why Sergeant Nick Bailey did not fall ill within 15 minutes is because he was only affected by trace contamination.
  2. It defies any sense of credibility to suggest that Yulia and Sergei Skripal (who has a heart condition and diabetes)
    1. Both used the door handle to close the door to the house (It only requires one person).
    2. Touched a deadly nerve agent known as novichok which is ten times as strong as VX and which was supposedly spread on that door handle.
    3. Received a dosage from touching that door handle which meant that they both fell ill four hours later at exactly the same time even though they had different physiognomies. It must have been a very clever and sentient door handle to have achieved a feat which no human has yet achieved.
    4. Left their house in the morning (there is no evidence for the claim that they left at noon).
    5. Managed to drive from their house to the town.
    6. Fed some ducks, without affecting them nor indeed a child who also ate some of the bread.
    7. Went to a restaurant, whereupon Sergei Skripal drank alcohol.
    8. Went to a pub, whereupon Sergei Skripal drank more alcohol
    9. Paid with either cash or a card without affecting those who came into contact with his chosen method of payment.
    10. Walked to the park with no apparent problem.
    11. Were not seen as in any way affected during this period. Apart that is from an apparent claim with respect to that Mr Skirpal behaving oddly. This was however to do with him getting angry at the fact that he had to wait 40 minutes for his meal. It would not be unexpected for an English person to categorize anger as odd behaviour in that the English are in large part known as not being used to open displays of emotion and are more likely to put up with bad service.
    12. Having complained at at 3:30pm and then left the restaurant as reported by the security services favorite journal the dailymail were both then suddenly affected at the same by the nerve agent a few hours later after its supposed application  even though they both have different physiognomies with Sergei Skripal suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure. From that article
    13. Contaminated Sergeant Nick Bailey with the nerve agent by him coming into contact with them but did not contaminate the ducks nor the child by feeding them bread nor indeed anyone else before they were found in the park.
    14. Were not filmed on CCTV collapsing given that there is coverage throughout the Maltings shopping area. In particular, it is notable that no footage of this has been published in that the CCTV was working throughout that area and thus a choice has been made not to publish it.
    15. Were treated by a billion to one coincidence by the daughter of the Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army who just happened to be in the park when they were and was the first to treat them.
  3. Both Yulia and Sergei Skripal can only have fallen ill within 15 minutes of the application of the nerve agent and experienced a heavier dose than the Sergeant Nick Baliey, in that they both became unconscious.
  4. Moreover the fact that Sergei ill very slightly before Yulia does confirm the fact that they had different physionomies and that as stated below she applied the nerve agent to her wrist, said to her father “Eurgh smell that” whereupon he touched it and was affected first.
  5. Some might incorrectly claim that the case of Sergeant Nick Bailey who was one of the first people to respond to the emergency call in relation to the Skripals and to visit them (as stated here by then chief constable Kier Pritchard) as well contradicts the claim that the substances takes fifteen minutes to take effect. He stated however that he began to feel ill almost immediately after taking off his forensic suit and upon his return to the station.but managed to sleep on two successive nights and only began to feel terrible two days later as evidence. The length of time as well as the fact that he was conscious throughout his treatment indicates that he can only have succumbed to a trace and not a direct application. Indeed he states “I was conscious throughout the whole time,” he said. “I had lots of injections… I had five or six infusions at any one time in my arms. Physically, I felt quite numb after a while.”. It would also be expected that he would feel increasingly ill in that unlike everyone who had been affected, he had had no medical treatment after touching a trace of the substance. As stated, given the Skirpals had a heavier dose and went into a coma and given that they could not and did not suffer any ill effects up until they time they were in the park, they became ill in much shorter period. The dose meant that the angle of decline in their condition was more precipitative and would have been felt by them far earlier which it quite obviously wasn’t.
  6. Charlie Rowley did not fall ill within 15 minutes because he washed off the substance from his hands. He was put artificially in a coma
  7. Sergeant Nick Bailey was of course hospitalised by a nerve agent which is apparently 10 times as deadly as VX.VX was of course the substance which according to Colonel Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon a British Army officer for 23 years and commanding officer of the UK’s Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment and NATO’s Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion, which could apparently kill 1,000,000 people. According to the OPCW, the sample taken was of high purity They found 100mg. This will of course have been taken from the door handle after Sergeant Nick Bailey has supposedly touched it, thereby reducing the amount which is spread on the surface of that door handle and which they could have taken from a sample. The lethal dose for novichok is estimated at 3mg so he cannot have been in contact with novichok because he would have died.This is proven by the fact that he apparently ran a marathon after being poisoned.Obviously if you believe he was poisoned with novichok, you are a semi-simian simpleton because it is obvious that he wasn’t.
  8. Similarly it is claimed in a Russian newspaper that they have a copy of a transcript where it is claimed that Sergei Skripal spoke to Yulia Skripal over the phone (even though he has a a tracheotomy tube) and moreover after having been poisoned with novichok and with said medical appendage supposedly he is now trying to do sports with a treadmill and strength training. Strangely this is not reported in any other Russian newspapers.
  9. 21 other emergency workers according to the then acting chief constable at Wiltshire police,  Kier Pritchard, were affected by the substance and experienced itching eyes, difficulty breathing and vomiting. This would most likely pertain given the number of people to emergency workers who were either at the hospital or who transported them there, given the number as well as the fact that it is according to its creator more potent when it is warmer. Indeed this is also the case with the ambulance workers who took care of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley. The fact that no-one else in either the pub nor indeed the restaurant experienced any adverse effects, particularly given that these were enclosed locations with lots of people present, nor indeed the ducks or child whom they had fed, nor indeed they themselves in the very enclosed space of a car which would have had heating in degrees of near zero completely discounts the possibility that the Skripals had been poisoned earlier on in the day.
  10. The location where the nerve agent was applied can only therefore have been the park or nearby. There is no other possible explanation.
  11. There has moreover been an attempt to conceal this fact by a) deleting the article which showed that Sergeant Nick Bailey was one of the first on the scene to visit the Skripals and was thus contaminated there and by b) claiming instead in the recent panorama documentary that he went straight to the house. This is rather ineffectual given that that the article is available on the internet archive and gven that the deletion itself looks rather suspicious in the light of Simon Shercliff’s role. Moreover the official statement from Chief Constable Kier Pritchard and PCC Angus Macpherson states that he rushed to the emergency and was first on the scene which would not have been the house. This is also confirmed here, by the telegraph, the financial times, the dailymail, the bbc and the times
  12.  The door handle had the greatest concentration on it because
    1. The security services favorite journal the dailmail along with the Salisbury journal both  confirm the fact that the park was decontaminated immediately after the attack. At no point previous to that had it been reported that samples had been takenIndeed samples were only taken from the park on the 6th and later on on the 9th, as can be seen from Russian state media. Previous to that they had thought it was fentanyl.  If you look at the video and pictures in the Salisbury journal link, you can quite clearly see the firemen putting on their suits and hosing down the area and not in any way shape or form taking samples but disposing of things in a manner which does not conform to the collection of samples.
    2. Sergeant Nick bailey who was one of the first people at the scene then went to the house and spread the contamination. The nerve agent is persistent and stays in the environment and in particular in clothing which was not removed from the emergency workers as it should have been given the fact that it could have affected them and given the fact that the vapor can collect on other objects which would be true of any nerve agent in such a form
    3. What was the exact process of spreading the contamination to the door handle? Sergeant Nick Bailey was wearing issue gloves, was one of the first to be in contact with the Skripals and either touched them to wake them up touching part of the body which the two initial responders had not been in contact with, or came into contact with what had contaminated them,  got in his car, went to their house, put on the forensic suit (rather than appropriate clothing), not being aware that he had already been contaminated and in doing so transferred some of the substance onto the suit, touched the door handle transferring some onto there, went into the house, did the necessary examination within the house, came out, took off the suit whereupon he started to feel ill because he touched some of the nerve agent.
    4. With respect to the doctor who was the very first on the scene, it is entirely possible that he was one of the 21 emergency service workers affected by the nerve agent as reported by the acting chief constable of Wiltshire police. It is notable that the article only states that the two policemen who came along afterwards and who had handled the belongings of the Skripals were unaffected but not the doctor who first treated them.
    5. This was reported in December and has been contradicted by a new “revelation” which occurred in January of 2019. As pointed out by Craıg Murray and by a spectacularly incredible coincidence, the very first person on the scene was Colonel Alison McCourt. She is none other than Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army who apparently let her daughter perform mouth to mouth resuscitation on the Skripals. She would not of course have come into contact with the nerve agent which as explained ın point 7.1 came from a perfume bottle and would have been applied to her wrist which would have been covered up as it was cold and which she would not have come into contact with given that no emergency medical treatment would involve touchıng someone’s wrist.
    6. Indeed the following which was published in mailonline which apparently consists of extracts from “a gripping account of the Salisbury attacks where the Skirpals were apparently frozen like statues by Britain’s top chemical weapons expert”. His name is Colonel Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon and there are quite a few rather crucial points to make
      1. He was in Abu Dhabi at the time and cannot have provided any account of what occurred as the headline suggests.
      2. He works for the British army as their Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment and will therefore lie on behalf of the government. Indeed he was enouraged by his friends in the intelligence world (A Mr Simon Shercliff no doubt) to counter the “Russian fake narrative” as part of which he ensures that the MoD does the bidding of the Ministry of defence when the FCO should be subordinate to the army, navy and air force and lies on their behalf, continuously in fact.
        1. He says that acusations that the UK had no motives for such an attack. This is clearly a lie because they did have a motive.
        2. He says there is Russia propganda and fake news but this is not true because the FCO could not provide any examples.
        3. He states that he got threatening messages from Russia but they could have been someone impersonating Russians
        4. He lies about the fact that the officer Nick Bailey vistied the house first when he visited the park.
        5. He says “After David asked for a 24-hour ceasefire so that we could get the children out of the city on humanitarian grounds, Putin said ominously: ‘Tell your friend de Bretton-Gordon to stop accusing Assad of chemical attacks.‘”. A small point Vladimir Putin does not speak English and this is a very obvious misinterpretation and an obvious lie
        6. He states that the United Kingdom has not manufactured chemical weapons since 1930 which is not true in that this occurred in WW2. He goes on to state that any manufacturing since that tşime was only for “research and testingpurposes” which of course is irrelevant in that that was needed in this case.
        7. He says they were immediately treated with atropine which is used against pesticides and nerve agents but this is clearly contradicated by the fact that they initially thought it was fentanyl and did not take samples from the park until the sixth and by the statement from the police that there was no risk to public health.
        8. He attempts to pull at the heartstrings by citing his record and massgraves which does not indicate someone who investigates matters without emotion as would be necessary and does indeed indicate a need to resort to emotional manipulation to show his supposed experience. But then such experience is immaterial if you lie on behalf of the government as is quite evident here.
        9. He lies in order to conceal Russian infiltration
      3. He was the first person to suggest novichok which was used in the attack
        1. He wouldn’t have even been able to determine what it was given that it wasn’t even in the country
        2. He is interestingly not even a doctor and has a degree in farming so doesn’t have the qualifications required to determine which substances something is
        3. It is an obviously strange conclusion that it was novichok at the outset given the fact that
          1. It is 10 times deadily than VX which itself is 50000 times stronger than chlorine
          2. It would be far more likely to therefore kill
          3. They were just frozen and not dead as one would presume would be the case if it were novichok and one knew nothing about the case.
          4. He is either lying or extremely stupid
        4. The government obviously got the idea to claim that it was novichok from him which was not the only time that occurred. He also had also stated with respect to Douma that “A sophisticated nerve agent was used at Douma, not just chlorine. Only Assad has the capability to produce these substances inside Syria. And using chemical weapons is his standard modus operandi.” before the OPCW report, without having visited and this is discounted by the fact that the OPCW had to resort to faking the evidence with respect to Douma.
      4. The bias and lack of objective investigation is evident from the people involved given that, apparently at the outset, on the very first day, without any investigation, they have concludes that Russia is responsible and proceed on that basis.
      5. As it is from the BBC, given that they used this individual as an expert consultant for their docudrama “The Skripal files”
    7. The 21 emergency service workers could have been affected in the park, although that seems less likely.
  13. The process whereby the Skirpals were affected by the nerve agent is likely to have been as follows:
    1. Julia Skripal saw or was given the bottle containing the “perfume”, applied it to her wrist, noticed that it smelt strange, indicated as much to her father, whereupon he touched her daughter’s wrist, put some on his finger and smelt it without washing it, whereupon he went “yuck” and said throw it away and they both fell ill.
    2. The police officers who were first on the scene were not affected because of the fact that it was cold and she was wearing a coat. The coat was only removed once she was in the back of the ambulance or indeed at the hospital due to the fact that it was cold and she was ill whereupon it was the case that 21 people were reported as being affected.
    3. Indeed novichok is a substance which does not evaporate easily and as such would have only become activated in a warm environment where the coat was removed.
    4. Sergeant Nick Bailey, who was one of the first to be in the park, examined her wrist for signs of injections thinking that they were drug users, whereupon he touched the nerve agent. The two police officers did not report doing as much.
    5. The bottle of perfume was removed from the scene by someone with gloves who then left and threw it in the other park in order to spread the panic at a later date. This was on CCTV by the police who, as mentioned, decided not to make mention of the fact that it was working. The person who removed it was quite probably the doctor who was first on the scene and whose identity somewhat suspiciously is kept hidden.

 

2 The substance has not officially been declared to be novichok and cannot have been novichok

  1. Any output from the OPCW is questionable given the fact that it has been established beyond doubt that the OPCW report into a supposed chemical weapons attack in Syria was doctored.
  2. Moreover no official report from either the DSTL (Porton Down), the OPCW no indeed the Speiz Laboratory. have stated officially that the substance was Novichok. All such statements come from the secondary sources such as the media and government. Moreover the Spiez laboratory does not disconfirm the possibility that it is BZ
    1. The report by Porton Down does not confirm the presence of novichokScreenshot from 2018-10-05 06-16-12.png
    2. The OPCW report does not confirm the presence novichok Screenshot from 2018-10-05 06-09-20.png
    3. The report from the Spiez laboratory does not deny it is BZScreenshot from 2018-10-05 06-20-25
  3. It cannot have been “Novichok”. Novichok is a substance which is apparently five to seven times more deadly than VX and exposure is followed by cessation of breathing and deathWikipedia states that the the lethal dose is estimated for 70 kg human males via exposure to the skin is reported to be 30–50 mg/70kg and that the effects are such that there is is little time for treatment. If it had been novichok, they would have been dead given the fact that:
    1. The nerve agent was reported to be of high purity
    2. The usage of a spray would have meant that they would have been affected by a far greater quantity than 100mg,
    3. It took some to determine that they had been subject to a nerve agent and there is little time for treatment when novichok is applied.
    4. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon commanding officer of the UK’s Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment and NATO’s Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion claimed in extracts from his “account” of what occurred that at Porton down, he held a small vial of VX which could apparently kill a million of people, the thought of which apparently left him shaking. Yet
      1. Novichok is 10 times deadlier than VX
      2. A perfume bottle containing a highly pure version of novichok only managed to knock out most of those who were affected most of whom recovered, one of whom, the policeman, managed to run a marathon.
  4. Vil Mirzayano the creator of novichok claims that they did not fall it due to the fact that the bottle had not been shaken properly, as a consequence of which the nerve agent was not in a highly pure form. This is contracted by the official statement that it was a highly pure form. Moreover, this “highly pure form of novichok” did not kill Sergei Skrıpal despite the fact that he had diabetes, obesity and a heart condition and moreover liked a drink but did kill Dawn Sturgess who despite her problems was in better health. It moreover did not kill anyone else.
  5. As stated, one of the people affected, Sergeant Nick Bailey has completed something which most people aren’t capable of, namely a marathon. This is after supposedly having been affected by a nerve agent which is apparently 10 times as deadly as VX. İt is therefore entirely ımplausıble and untrue to state that he was affected by such a substance given that he is now planning on running in a marathon.

 

3 The fact that Porton Down was ruled out as a source at the outset is telling

Reasonably, in any police investigation, for the sake of objectivity and impartiality, all potential suspects are interviewed, even if just to rule things out. The fact that the authorities who act as judge and prosecutor in this instance, instantly and without the slightest investigation dismissed any suggestion that it may have come from Porton Down is under such circumstances telling.

At the very least, it is possible for there to have been a leak involving Porton Down given the fact that in nuclear establishments there have been issues to do with security and it is not unimaginable to state that the situation should be much the same in a chemical weapons facility.

The fact that it was not an accident however can be ascertained by the following factors

  1. The timing and pretext.
  2. The British government subjected thousands of British citizens to chemical and biological warfare trials during Cold War
  3. The immediate ruling out of the possibility of the possibility that there may have been an accident indicates something to hide given that such things are to some extent investigated.
  4. The keenness and the lengths the British government has gone to in order blame Russia.
  5. Similar cases such as those of Gareth Williams and the so called “suicide cluster”
  6. The fact that the substance was found in a perfume bottle which indicates an intent to use it and not a leakage.

It is also suspicious that the British government pushed hard for the OPCW to have a mandate to determine the source of the nerve agent after that body had determined the type of nerve agent which was employed. This resulted in them being unable to determine the origin in this case.

 

4 The United Kingdom has requested a Europol but not an INTERPOL red notice means that they do not have confidence in their investigation

This pertains to the two Russians whom the United Kingdom claimed were responsible for the attack. Strangely they have requested that Europol declare a Red notice for the two Russians but have not done so with INTERPOL. They have elected not to request a red notice with INTERPOL on the basis that Russia would not extradite them which may be true but then not to do so is laughable given that

  1. The two Russians will not be detained and extradited except by bilateral arrangements should they leave Russia
  2. This is with the exception of Europe who for some reason would extradite them because they have applied for a EUROPOL warrant

Obviously they do not have confidence that INTERPOL would put a red notice on the database because they know the information is not true and the Russians would reveal as much in any extradition case but do have confidence that EUROPOL would.

The fact that the charges are on the Europol database but not on the Interpol database shows that

  1. The charges do not stand up to the not exactly stringent prosecutorial standards of INTERPOL. A few examples are as follows
    1. The FCO put disinformation on the INTERPOL database to the effect that I had been arrested in a country where I had never been and that I had an American passport, so the evidence against the two Russians, is obviously not that great.
    2. INTERPOL had presidents who were members of the Nazi party in the second war some of whom were prosecuted for war crimes. It might be deemed that averse circumstances meant that it was not possible to have someone who was not a member of the Nazi party as president during that period but during the 1960s,
      1. They elected Jean Nepote as president. He had collaborated with France’s collaborationist Vichy Government during the war.
      2. After this they elected Paul Dickopf as its president. Although it was discovered that he had been an SS officer in the war, having worked in the very villa where Interpol and the Gestapo were headquartered, he nevertheless remained president until 1972.
    3. They would for a long period refuse to prosecute Nazi war criminals but would and still go after people who seek asylum.
    4. Their most recent president was jailed  for corruption and the president but one before him was jailed for corruption, fraud, racketeering and defeating the ends of justice
  2. Europol thus have even less stringent prosecutorial standards than INTERPOL and the only plausible explanation for agreeing to this red notice given the laughable nature of the “evidence” is because they are involved in this criminal affair.
    1. This might have something to do with the fact that Rob Wainwright who worked for MI5, whose daughter was awarded a place at Cambridge and who was knighted on June 2018, was the head of Europol during that period.
    2. This is the reason why they are obsessed about people believing in “conspiracy theories” and “fake news”. For the most part, this is code for the fact that they do not like it when someone does not believe the nonsense put forth by national and international authorities. The term “Fake news” it might be of interest to know was invented by Trump.
    3. It also demonstrates very clearly the way in which Europe approaches corruption which emanates from the United Kingdom and the way in which they would be likely to deal with harassment as part of that.

 

5 Everyone had the means but only the UK had the motive

  1. Every government has the means given the fact that the chemical formula is openly available on amazon to anyone with the resources to fabricate it.
  2. There was a motive for Russia to attack me given what I was revealing in relation to Russia. Russia has only attempted ever attempted to employ red sparrows in my case and has at no point ever attempted to gain hold of information which I hold on electronic storage devices even when they had ample opportunity to do so. I was asked politely on one occasion but had to decline their offer. Their specialty is blackmail or attempted blackmail.
  3. They chose not to do so whereas there no motivation for them to attack Mr Skirpal. It is nonsense to suggest that they chose to attack a retired FSB officer who was put in prison for spying for the British, not poisoned whilst in prison, let out early, pardoned by the Russian president, deported to the United Kingdom and who still asked to return to Russia. It is fanciful to suggest that several years later after having had the opportunity of doing so, they decided to come all the way to the United Kingdom and to kill him with a nerve agent, given the above and especially given the fact that he had nothing new to divulge. Moreover, after the attack, Julia Skripal expressed a desire to go back to Russia which is fairly strange behaviour if it were indeed Russia who attacked them.
  4. No other government can be said to have any sort of motive to attack a long retired FSB officer given that he was not working for an allied intelligence agency. This can be ascertained by the fact that the British government would have mentioned of this in an official report and exploited this as a reason.
  5. The British government has the best motive which was
    1. To use an attack and the revelation of dubious “information” to conceal the revelation of the information in my dossier something which is proven by the timing of the attack and the people involved.
    2. Not to upset the special relationship,relationships with European intelligence agencies nor indeed Russia by revealing infiltration. There have been donations to the conservative party from Russian individuals some of whom have links to the Russian government and they would not wish to cause upset in this respect by revealing the infiltration. Indeed Boris Johnson prevented the publication of the report into Russian influence in the British political landscape before the election.
  6.  It is lawful according to the latest judgement of the investigatory powers tribunal for agents of the intelligence services to commit crimes which can include murder, rape, torture and so on. As it is lawful for them to commit crime, it is therefore lawful for them to interfere in the judicial process and indeed the press by for example tampering with or supplying false evidence. With reference to the third direction, an agent to be clear can be anyone so this is applicable. This has unfortunate consequences in that a foreign country could do the same to the UK but Russia has no motivation to do so in this case.
  7. There is an additional motive which is not a primary one. I As such, it would be logical to state that such funding along with the need not to be seen to be infiltrated and thus affect not only the special relationship but the intelligence relationships with European countries will obviously have make the British government unwilling to investigate Russian infiltration of which they are aware.
  8. There is also the fact that Sergei Skripal personally can plausibly be said to be in relation to the fact that he may have still have been spying for Russia. A former Kremlin official, Valery Morozov, who was an associate of Sergei Skripal after he was exiled to the UK stated that Mr Skripal was in regular contact with the Russian embassy.
    1. The response from the Russian embassy to this claim is nuanced in that they state that “They are not aware of any contacts” rather than denying the fact by saying that “He was not in contact with the Russian embassy”. It is suspicious that the investigatory bodies have not commented on this nor denied that this was the case by calling it disinformation especially given the fact that
      1. The British government often complain about Russian disinformation.
      2. I have asked for examples of this and they have provided none.
    2. Mr Morozov apparently according to reports received anonymous encrypted threatening emails “telling him not to meddle” but they did not come from Russia but came from the UK intelligence sources who were trying to give the impression that they came from Russia.
      1. The emails are anonymous and encrypted but the message is clear stating that “Russia is coming to get you”. In which case, given the message, why bother with the anonymity and encryption? It’s like me saying that “I would like to kill my neighbour” and doing so in code which can be decrypted. The reason its anonymous and encrypted is someone trying to give the impression that the source is Russia whilst coming their tracks. Such misattribution is something the CIA apparently carried out as revealed by wikileaks in vault 7.
      2. It is inconsistent behavior to be brazen in its attempt to kill the Skripals (even though the facts do not support this) but feeble and anonymous with an ex-Kremlin official.

 

3 The media coverup

1 Insisting ludicrously that novichok was applied to the doorhandle.

  1. The fact that the government, intelligence services as well as the media continue to claim that it is the door handle when it is quite obviously and clearly not a plausible explanation and simply untrue and when at least one individual in one newspaper would have reached the same conclusions as I have speaks of a high level cover-up and an attempt to conceal the ludicrously obvious via DSMA notices and the usage of IOPS.
  2. It is not the first instance of the timid British media cooperating in this way as one can see in my case, that of Gareth Williams, Tessa Jowell, Airey Naeve, and indeed others with particular reference to the “suicide cluster”
  3. It just so happens that, as stated, Simon Shercliff of St Catharines college was appointed to sit on the DSMA committee at the same time as being appointed as director of national security at the foreign and commonwealth office. This occurred shortly before I had notified people that I was writing a dossier on Russian infiltration involving the college where he and I were members and shortly before the Salisbury affair began.
  4. In addition to being responsible for suppressing stories in relation to the Salisbury affair in his role as a member of the DSMA committee, he will as director of national security be responsible for spreading disinformation in relation to the Salisbury affair through bodies which form part of the foreign office such as the IRD (which amongst other things spreads fake news in the newspapers) and JTRIG (which amongst other things spreads fake news in chatroom and forums).
  5. The utter nonsense which is claimed in relation to this affair (it was spread on a door handle and so on) along with the way in which no-one from the mainstream media questions that nonsense can only indicate the usage of IOPS/JTRIG and the involvement of the DSMA committee.
  6. Such efforts extend to the fifth estate, namely satirical publications, the primary instances of which in the UK are “Have I got news for you”, the “Now show” and Private Eye.
    1. In this respect it just so happens that the first episode of the new series of Have I got news for you in April of that year was hosted by Jeremy Paxman. As you can see in this clip, the editor of private eye, Ian Hislop calls people who question the narrative that it was not Russia, “conspiracy theorists” and then along with Jeremy Paxman instantly rubbishes the idea that the UK was responsible for the Salisbury affair. And moreover there is the swallowing of the lie that a substance which was pure and which was ten times as deadly as VX had been used.
    2. Mr Hislop does indicate that he was not however joking when he used the term “conspiracy theorist” through the fact that in a later show from 2019 he makes an unprompted joke about Vladimir Putin smearing novichok on Greta Thurnbergs’s doorhandle.
    3. He does so having made a program about “fake news” which was broadcast three days before that show all the whilst talking later on in that “satirical” show about how President Erdogan supposedly murders people. In light of his participation in concealing the fact that the British government was responsible for the murders of people like Gareth Williams and others and promoting the lie that the Russian government was responsible for Salisbury when it was the UK, this is rather hypocritical to say the least.
    4. In a later program he goes on to state that people who talk about a state controlled media need to “get out more” and are talking complete “rubbish”. Admittedly this was with reference to Eamon Holmes comments about 5g and the corona-virus but he could have merely castigated Mr Holmes rather than those who show that the British media is state controlled.
    5.  The other program which was broadcast the same day as the Paxman episode of HIGNFY and which had been broadcasting since the very day when the Salisbury attack occurred was “The Now show” on Radio 4 which again was favorable to the government line. It just so happens that this program which has 2 to 3 series every year, is co-presented by someone from St Catharines, known as Steve Punt.
  7. There are, as far as I am aware, no other satirical news programs broadcast by other British mainstream media groups nor indeed the BBC. This means that the entirety of the British fifth and fourth estates were either
    1. Controlled or influenced by a member of St Catharines college in his dual role as director of national security (where he is in charge of IOPS) and member of the DSMA committee
    2. Presented by a member of St Catharines with Jeremy Paxman presenting the first episode of HIGNFY, Richard Ayaode the fourth and Steve Punt presenting the now show
  8. The fact that they went to these lengths proves that there was a need to
    1. give the impression there were no internal “problems” of the sort which I was highlighting in my dossier and which pertained to Russiagate and Russian infiltration
    2. to do by insisting that everyone believe in a non existent Russian external threat which they in fact had created for the purposes of dispelling that impression.

 

2 The statement by Yulia Skripal shows a glaring error along with the fact that she is forced to collude

Yulia Skripal was apparently conscious and talking on the 29th of March 2018 which would mean that the tracheotomy had been removed and indeed she was discharged on April the 10th. Given that they had received expert care,  a tracheostomy wound takes 5 to 6 days to heal.  The video where she gives her statement on May the 23rd is therefore odd for various reasons.

Given that the scar would have healed by this stage, it would appear that, as one can see from the video, the mark where the tracheotomy is present is not real and has been applied for effect. The fact that it is overdone gives this away.

As such she would be aware of this given that some form of makeup is applied. She is thus a participant in this fraud probably an unwilling one given the fact that she states that she wishes to return to Russia but apparently does not want the assistance of the Russian embassy. It is also notable that in this notable public appearance after the attack, Julia Skripal does not claim that it was Russia who attacked her.

The interview sounds like one where she had been told, with a prepared statement, to inform the Russians she did not need their help and to give the impression that she is not being kept “prisoner”. She obvious is because of her unauthorized calls to her relative in Russia which suddenly stopped in April which would not have occurred had she been afraid of Russia given the means which they would have had of tracking her.

The fact that it is staged can also be gauged by the fact that

  1. It is a statement which is prepared
  2. Whilst she is allowed to give such a statement, it is not permitted for questions to be asked of her.

 

3 More lies from the state broadcaster the BBC

The BBC has produced a documentary which it claims is an accurate representation of what occurred.  As part of which it has interviewed people which it claims were involved or were witnesses to what occurred in Salisbury or what precipitated the attack. One of the people which it has interviewed is someone whom they claim is a neighbour, a Mr Ross Cassidy.

He states as reported in mailonline that Mr Skripals stated the following ‘Something Sergei said when he was right here last week. Sat exactly where you are, in fact. He said: “Putin’s going to get me.”’”

Mr Cassidy is however an obvious liar for the following reasons

  1. Had such a statement been made, it would have been mentioned at the time by the government or indeed other organizations (most notably the media) who were involved in reporting the case in order to support the lie that Russia was responsible. It is glaring that it has been mentioned two years subsequent to the events in Salisbury and not at the time when the attack took place.
  2. It is made by someone who cannot be deemed impartial given that he worked for the British military as part of the Royal Navy
  3. It is a statement which is directly contracted by Sergei Skripal who had some difficulty in believing that the Russian government would have carried out the attack
  4. Yulia Skripal would have been aware of this and would have  mentioned this in her statement being the person who was closet to Sergei Skripal and would not have stated that she wanted to return to Russia.
  5. The information research department who operates as part of the foreign and commonwealth office and which is responsible for much of the media representation of what occurred is run by Simon Shercliff and this is an instance of what is known as Information Operations or IOPS.

 

4 Disinformation from the FCO that Russia is spreading disinformation

The United Kingdom claims that Russia is spreading disinformation about the case but is unable to provide examples in relation to this via a Freedom of İnformation request under the guise of it coming under “international relations”. This is whilst they are keen to claim that Russia is spreading disinformation even though they cannot provide examples of disinformation. The allegation that Russia is spreading disinformation is therefore itself disinformation.

This is proven amongst other things by the fact that the former foreign secretary Boris Johnson claimed that the DSTL said the nerve agent from Russia when they were unable to derive the source and by the fact that this is not the first instance whereby they claimed that Russia was responsible for disinformation and

It is no doubt of concern to responsible people or at least it should be) that GCHQ and MI6 have, to give a few examples falsely, claimed that:

  1. Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction on the basis of evidence which they knew to be incorrect.
  2. Michael Flynn had some illicit contacts with a Russian which they did so for the purpose of recruiting me to MI6.
  3. There were some sex tapes on Donald Trump.
  4. The Russians killed an alumni of St Catharine’s and employee of SIS when in fact the evidence shows that it it was in fact the British state who killed him.
  5. I had an American passport and had been arrested in the Ukraine which they achieved by putting false information on an interpol database.
  6. The OPCW were unable to state where the chemical weapon originated. This was untrue because the head of the OPCW stated that it could have come from anywhere

I sent the following FOI request to the FCO on the 20th of March 3a Now one might imagine given their professed annoyance at the matter that they would be extremely keen to give chapter and verse upon this supposed Russian disinformation and I, like most people, would be happy to hear any examples which they might have.

Surprisingly (or not) they are reluctant to do so. After having waited the standard length of time (one might ask why they should make me wait since they are so keen to state there is Russian disinformation), on the 20th of April, I receive a reply to my FOI request claiming that they do indeed have examples but that

  1. They are not sure it is in the public interest to provide them
  2. There will therefore be a delay while they consider the matter.

I would think quite obvious to most people that they do not have any such examples of Russian disinformation in that “the public interest” is not a plausible reason for denying access to examples of Russian disinformation which

  1. Are in the public domain
  2. They protest about quite vocally

It would seem logical to state that there is a delay in the response because they are hoping that there will be examples of Russian disinformation in the future. This would seem to me to be pointless given the fact that my FOI request was in relation to Russian disinformation which had been broadcast up to that point and Russian disinformation which might occur at some point in the future. Here is that response to the FOI request.2a 2b I waited slightly longer than the standard 20 days for a response whereupon, in the manner of groundhog day, I am told that they are still considering the matter and that I have to wait a further 20 working days. There is however a slight flaw in this in that the expected date of any reply is the 23rd of March 2018 which as you can see in the copy of the letter presents a problem in that this in the past. Along with the fact that the date is in the past and the claim that they are unsure whether it is in the “public interest” to provide examples of Russian disinformation (even those these are already in the public domain and they complain about them), one can state that the claim of Russian disinformation is in fact disinformation.

A copy of the letter is given below 1a 1b

4 The choice of the idea

1 Where they got the idea from

To reiterate, it has been the case in the past that the intelligence services, most notably MI6, have based their plots  upon films and television. This is because they lack imagination something which is partially indicated by the fact that they don’t like mavericks. There are a few examples of this including the fact that

  1. The dossier which was used to justify the decision to invade Iraq in that the evidence in that dossier was inspired by the film  “the Rock” starring Nicholas Cage
  2. They have as stated based many of their important plots upon Doctor Who and indeed The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin

In the case of the Salisbury incident, they will have based their ideas on the Sherlock episode Hound of the Baskervilles because of

  1. Past form. Indeed this would be unsurprising given the fact that the BBC produution team decided to base the plot and production decisions on the basis of the last two episodes of Sherlock.
  2. The fact that they will have noticed that
    1. Whilst I was in Russia I developed a fixed interest in the television series Sherlock which appeared to have had an effect upon work such as is seen here (I did however start the blog before any such interest developed).
    2. I was rather good at uncovering material but felt the need to goad me by stating that I am not as good as Sherlock and had no real inclination to find out who was responsible.
      1. In that episode at least, I am better because
        1. I would not use a “mind palace” to discover the meaning of “Liberty in” but would use google.
        2. No such password as Thatcher would have been used on a CIA system or indeed any system
        3. One would at the outset consider the usage of chemical adulterants
      2. It is rather more stupid to leave evidence of who is responsible for something under the misapprehension that I would not find out
  3. The date of the attack occurred on the 4th of March which was the date of Sherlock Holmes first case in a Study in Scarlet.
  4. They will have noted that it is remarked upon by Holmes that Sherlock is on the spectrum as I am.
  5. The fact that it involves the usage of a chemical agent by someone in government who proceeds to lie about the fact

They thus used the selectors “aspergers” “sherlock” and came up with a fake chemical weapons attack which they carried out on the date of the first Sherlock case.

 

2 Why Salisbury and the Skripals were chosen

I have recently recalled that I had an awareness of the fact that two people I knew from university has lived in Salisbury, fact that I didn’t come to mind at the time of the attack.

Given the fact that their details are somewhat difficult to find and given that publicly available details showed that they or their relatives lived on the same street as the Skripals, I was presumably meant to be concerned that they might have been affected or at risk of being affected.

I am afraid I rather forgot about this and subsequent research does in any case show that one of the individuals in fact only went to school there.

They shall not be named however for reasons of privacy in that they could either be acting in the way which they have subsequently unaware or aware.

One of these individuals whom I shall Fred went to the same Cambridge college as myself and Simon Shercliff and his family have very strong historical links to the military and intelligence services and indeed are descended from aristocracy. The other who was his girlfriend and whom I shall call Jane went to another Cambridge college and has links with the military, the American one in this instance. As with Michael Hauser Raspe (and others) he was chosen to befriend me (on the day after I first met Michael in fact) as can be ascertained from the following set of “coincidences” which when added up (or rather multiplied as you do with probability calculations) means that this is not a coincidence.

  1. He has a royal name and attempted to befriend someone (ie myself) with the royal name Lişevsidenko. For reference in that particular college, there was noone else of that background
  2. We both had a father with the name Peter.
  3. We both had a lineage with respect to working on behalf of intelligence
  4. We both despite out backgrounds opted for state schools (I turned down Tonbridge and Judd) and he apparently did not like posh people.
  5. We both had parents who worked for American companies.
  6. He lived on a road which was named after the company for which the senior advisor to the department for health had worked.

The chances of him having got into his school without “help” even though he is intelligent are statistically somewhere less than 1% given that he is out of the catchment area for that very selective school and given that he has a relative who also went there. Even though one cannot doubt his intelligence, one can however, given the circumstances surrounding his admission to that school, question whether he was accepted to the college on an objective basis, in particular given the fact that, in addition to myself, there have been others from my time there who were not accepted on the basis of their academic potential which would appear to include some of his friends.  This has also been the case in the past in that the sons of Sir Arthur Bonsall were accepted to the college.

As such one can rightly question whether anyone got into that college on the basis of academic results and also question whether prizes are awarded for academic achievement. It is however true to state that he is one of the most intelligent people from that college but being realistic, this is not saying much given the level of intelligence which was on display at the college and given the fact that one can find people who are just as intelligent outside that college, most of whom live in Russia.

As such it was either suggested to him that he might like to apply to that college so he could meet me or he elected to perform such work. He was not for reference the only one. Other’s include of course Michael Hauser Raspe, Kang Tchou, someone with the initials G. D. who was surrounded by mathmos, at least one of whom worked for GCHQ, a person with the initials A.C. another with the initials C.W and the other Fred whom I mentioned here from Knights of God.

What tend to signify the fact that they moved as a result of some arrangement in relation to Salisbury is the fact that

  1. The fact that his name in particular is rare, both their details are difficult to find on the internet and the impression is given that they are likely live on the same street.
  2. They both got married in August of last year but the marriage appeared rather strange. It was something Jane’s sister (who gets on well with Jane) did not know about and none of the family or close friends were invited or indeed commented with the exception of Jane’s father who has links with the military. It was almost conducted under secret for some reason as if it was for reasons of security.
  3. Fred’s brothers details are not available on the internet as if he has gone missing which as an oxford graduate appears rather strange.
  4. Fred and Jane started work in America in October. He as an academic and she as a non-academic. This would have taken time to arrange and the fact that she managed to find a very suitable position along with himself in such a short space of time, indicates that things may have been arranged.
  5. Fred uniquely out of his “class” at the university he has a gov email address.
  6. Fred going to such a place which is on the west coast is a bit like Brian Sewell choosing to move to Margate in that has tastes and interests which are quite “elitist”, was rather snooty (quite correctly) about Harvard, and said his ambition was to live in an Oxbridge college. Their move to that part of a world seem odd and was perhaps down to a need to hide them.
  7. Fred did rather well at code breaking and yet it one does a search on google for the records of this they are suddenly missing. There is one single google link to a page containing  a link to a page which  supposedly holds such information but this is missing and does not show how good Fred is. This is however available on the internet archive and the logical conclusion is that he is working to some extent for American intelligence or that they are involved and that there has been an attempt to smudge such information.
  8. The fact that I can sense it in their case for some reason in much the same way as I can sense things in relation to certain other people as Vladimir Putin will tell you
  9. One can also look at the people involved in the investigation.
    1. The chief constable of Hampshire police where he lived, Olivia Pinkney, is for reference an ex-alumni of St Catharines.Moreover the chief constable of of the county where Fred went to school, Kier Pritchard,  like Simon Shercliff took up his position in February 2018. There is at present not much information as to his educational background but he went to a school called Kingsdown school which is a christian school next to a St Catharines primary school where he might indeed also have been a pupil.It being a coincidence that the two schools St Catharines school and Kingsdown school should be next to one another when St Catharines College Cambridge is next to Kings college and as such even if he did not go to that primary school is discounted according to the laws of probability. It is thus a coded message that the attack occurred in relation to St Catharines College.
    2. To be clear this is not to say that he was placed there to be in on it although he went along with an obvious lie. He will have been placed there in the manner of whilst “the mice are away the cats play”. There will have been corruption within the location police force given historical precedents involving the battle of the beanfield,
  10. The person who actually led the countertterorism investigation into the Salisbury attack and who was recently accorded an honour was the ex-cheif constable of Thames Valley police a Mr Francis Habgood. He is interestingly an alumnus of Kings college Cambridge.
  11. I added the section which pertains to the police on the 2nd of December 2019 at 8:47. The college through someone no doubt assigned by Simon Shercliff were observing the traffic and what was occurring on my computer. This was easy at the time because I had an insecure version of DNS. Whilst I was writing the above, St Catharines tweet with an old photo of the choir (which I have blurred in order to maintain privacy) at a place called Kings place which does confirm my suspicions given the fact that this
    1. Occurred whilst I was writing this
    2. This section of  the article pertains to someone in the photo
    3. The factors pertaining to the school of the chief constable (Kingsdown and St Catharines) and the fact that they choose to make reference to that person with the terms Kings and Catharines. So this is a sly and cynical nod and confirmation of what I am stating as well as the fact that that person was moved as a result. It is not a confirmation of moves which were made as a result of Russia given the fact that
      1. They would have known anyway about his potential employment.
      2. If there were such concerns, the move would have occurred whilst I was in Russia.
      3. They didn’t feature in my asylum dossier

With regards to the individuals who moved to America, it is obvious to me so it will certainly be obvious to others. I should however like to extend my congratulations to those two and to other talented individuals from the college who have managed to get away from that environment. I hope others follow although perhaps they should chose a state (or perhaps a country) which is rather more tasteful

It does however signify involvement from the American government although it is difficult to ascertain the reasons why they went to such arrangements. I can think of three reasons

  1. They were afforded protection from the non-existent attack by Russia or indeed from the British.
  2. The US government took advantage of the British and decided to take people whom they deemed to be talented.
  3. The US government was involved at the outset in the Salisbury affair but then it does not seem probable that they would have acted to conceal infiltration. It is equally possible the US were duped bearing in mind what I have seen of the US authorities.