About Sid

Socialist Inclusivity Diversity

NOVICHOK ‘PERFUME BOTTLE’ CREATES MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS. MSM STILL NOT ASKING THEM

15/07/2018 · by SKWAWKBOX · in Uncategorized. ·

The BBC and other media have announced this evening that, according to the brother of Charlie Rowley, the toxin that poisoned him and Dawn Sturgess was found in a perfume bottle that Rowley had picked up.

Interestingly, an article published online by the Daily Telegraph that now says similar to the BBC’s version first said something very different when it was published at 7.01pm this evening:

The original Telegraph article, left, and the one that quickly replaced it at the same url

(Current version here, Google archive of the original article currently here. PDF of the original available at the end of this article, as Wayback Machine et  will not save Google-cached versions)

The original version came complete with quotes from a chemical weapons expert about the likelihood that ‘assassins’ had used Rowley’s house – said to be vacant at the time – as a ‘safe house’ to prepare for the ‘hit’. But the article also speculated that Rowley had found the bottle when he moved in – which would mean his first contact with the poison or its container could go back weeks further than initially thought.

The media may be harmonising their stories, but the new developments raise more questions than they answer. The ‘MSM’ are still failing to ask those pertinent – and obvious – questions or the others that were already obvious last week.

Twelve days

As the SKWAWKBOX pointed out last week, when Charlie Rowley regained consciousness on Wednesday the police had been in possession of his house for twelve days but apparently did not find the ‘small glass bottle’ containing the poison until Rowley woke and, presumably, told them where to find it.

Questions:

◦ weren’t the police searching during this period?

◦ if they were, does this mean the bottle was hidden?

◦ if it was not hidden, why didn’t police take all potential candidate containers for testing immediately?

It’s not as if the idea of a perfume bottle didn’t occur to anyone. Days before the police found the bottle, the BBC’s security correspondent Frank Gardner had already suggested exactly that – which raises questions in itself, as the coincidence is certainly striking and Gardner has been rumoured to be close to UK security services, a rumour that Gardner has denied, although he has written of an attempt by the SIS to recruit him as a young man.

Wired article on Novichok poisons published early last week, before ‘glass bottle’ found

The CCTV

As the SKWAWKBOX also highlighted last week, after the Skripal poisoning in March, police released CCTV footage of a couple they described as persons of interest. Still images of this footage have been published by anonymous authors with claims of a strong resemblance to Rowley and Sturgess.

The ‘persons of interest’ captured on CCTV on the day of the Salisbury attack, close to where the Skripals were found

Questions:

◦  why have the media failed to comment on this resemblance?

◦ have investigators discounted the link?

◦ if so, why haven’t the media mentioned what would be an important and clearly very significant development?

◦ if the footage has not been discounted, why are no media commenting on the coincidence that a couple resembling the more recent victims was in the vicinity of the first poisoning?

The ‘perfume’

When police eventually announced that the Skripals had been poisoned by means of Novichok applied to the front door handle of their house, we were told that it was applied as a gel or some form of ‘gloop’ to prevent it being neutralised by weathering. This does not seem compatible with the idea of it being mistaken for a bottle of ‘perfume’.

In addition, the Telegraph’s original article suggested that Rowley may have found the bottle in his house rather than finding it in the street and picking up at random or speculatively.

Questions:

◦ when/where did Rowley ‘pick it up’, as his

◦ was the poison in gel form? If so:

◦ how did the Skripal attackers apply it effectively from a bottle designed to look like perfume?

◦ how were Rowley and Sturgess fooled into thinking it was perfume long enough for both of them to handle it without suspicion?

◦ Rowley continued to go about his day with a friend after Dawn Sturgess was hospitalised – why weren’t his suspicions raised by her illness after touching a bottle of ‘gloopy perfume?

◦ if it was not gel-like, how was it applied to the Skripals’ door handle successfully, since we were told the ‘gloop’ was necessary to the application?

◦ if it was not gel-like, how would the Skripals’ attackers use it without risk of their own contamination by the liquid or aerosol form?

◦ how long did Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley have the bottle?

◦ if they were contaminated quickly on finding it, why did it take hours for them to become ill?

◦ if Rowley simply ‘found’ the bottle and picked it up, why had the police not found it twelve days after taking possession of Rowley’s home where it eventually turned up?

◦ why did the Telegraph simply over-write its original article with the new one, instead of publishing a separate update? Was it merely that it was quickly superseded by new information?

‘That lot’

When first interviewed by the BBC, Matthew Rowley said that he wasn’t sure how his brother had become ‘involved with that lot’.

Question:

◦ what ‘lot’? People? A substance? Something else?

The media

The media have not raised these obvious questions – and other potential ones – that the circumstances, official narrative and new developments raise.

Question: why?

Comment:

Any of these questions might have perfectly logical answers – but unlike what might be expected of journalists covering a huge story, none of the MSM seem asking them to find out.

PDF of original Telegraph ‘safe house’ article here.

https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fskwawkbox.org%2F2018%2F07%2F15%2Fnovichok-perfume-bottle-creates-more-questions-than-answers-msm-still-not-asking-them%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C752d7134dbb742e24fca08d5ea9fbd10%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636672894149995650&sdata=DPKCOKv5TSoUTIbU79y%2BUv84tHx%2BQSdxGwRKKNwpOXE%3D&reserved=0

Advertisements

VIDEO: A TALE OF TWO TOMS – WATSON’S FIVE-DAY ABOUT-FACE ON MAY’S BREXIT DEAL

15/07/2018 · by SKWAWKBOX · in Uncategorized. ·

Labour deputy leader Tom Watson

They say a week is a long time in politics. It seems five days is a very long time in the life of politician Tom Watson.

Just last Tuesday, Watson – along with a number of other Labour ‘moderates’ – enraged many Labour supporters by telling the BBC that he thought Labour’s job was to prevent Theresa May’s government from collapsing – an outrageous idea when so many people are suffering and even dying under the policies of a callous and cowardly Tory regime – and seemed to suggest that Labour should prop her up by supporting her half-baked Brexit deal.

This morning, Watson appeared on Sky News and sounded like an entirely different person:

two-watsons-mp4Get Link to Video.__vd_aev5o7_screen-reader-text{clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);position:absolute !important;height:1px;width:1px;overflow:hidden}

Play Video.__vd_aev5o7_screen-reader-text{clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);position:absolute !important;height:1px;width:1px;overflow:hidden}

0

Play Video.__vd_aev5o7_screen-reader-text{clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);position:absolute !important;height:1px;width:1px;overflow:hidden}

Open Volume Control.__vd_aev5o7_screen-reader-text{clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);position:absolute !important;height:1px;width:1px;overflow:hidden}

0:00 / 1:37

HD

Enter Full Screen.__vd_aev5o7_screen-reader-text{clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);position:absolute !important;height:1px;width:1px;overflow:hidden}

Comment:

Watson told Sky’s Sophie Ridge that May’s deal is, well –  half-baked – as well as not good enough and he agreed with the ministers who resigned last week that May’s deal is ‘unworkable’, as well as underlining how it would be bad for British workers. He sounded like a Labour politician.

Has someone had a firm word in his ear, or has the outrage from Labour members and supporters persuaded him his initial stance wasn’t going to work out well?

#FBEU – Not In My Name, Even Though I Voted Remain

Turning the Tide

The attitude of the Follow Back Pro EU brigade on twitter (#FBPE) is typical of so many arrogant MPs who think they can overrule the ‘stupid public’ on Brexit, and I say this as a remain voter. It’s that kind of know-it-all arrogance that drove people to want to give MPs a shock by voting leave in the first place. The EU is not some saintly institution. When Greece were already on their knees, they shoved their faces in the dirt for good measure. Yes, there are positive aspects to the EU, but let’s not be blinkered about the bad. UnFuck2

For example, they are increasingly neo-liberal in their ethos, and undemocratic. They didn’t stop our government imposing cruel austerity measures, low wages, and greater work insecurity on our people. Why would they when they deliberately imposed the same and worse on the Greek people? They want to impose competition in…

View original post 152 more words

PROFESSOR’S POWERFUL EMAIL REJECTING MAY’S WINDRUSH INVITATION IS A MUST-READ/SHARE

21/06/2018 · by SKWAWKBOX · in Uncategorized. ·

Professor Gus John (image: Gus John Twitter profile)

Professor Gus John is an award-winning writer, educator and campaigner, who was born in Grenada in the 1940s and moved to the UK at the age of nineteen. He received an email from Downing Street inviting him to this Friday’s reception for the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Windrush, the vessel after whom a group of the UK’s Caribbean citizens are named:

Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:17 PM

The Prime Minister invites GusJohn to a reception for the 70th anniversary of Windrush at 10 Downing Street on Friday 22nd June, 1300 – 1530

Suggested dress code: Smart attire

Important Information

For security and safety reasons, we would kindly ask guests to note the following important points:

Please print this invitation and bring it with you. On arrival at the gates of Downing Street, the police officer will ask to see your invitation and a form of photographic ID (passport or driving licence). You will be subject to an entry search and therefore requested not to bring unnecessary luggage.

Please email the Events Office if the name on your invitation does not match your photographic ID  

If you lose your invitation please inform the Events Office.

This invitation is non-transferable and is for the named invitee only.

Disabled access

Vehicle access and parking in Downing Street is only permitted for guests with a disability and by prior arrangement. Please contact the Events Office if you require this.

Mobile phones and photographs

The use of cameras and mobile phones is not permitted inside Downing Street. You will be asked to leave your phone in the front hall.

An official photographer will be present and photographs will be available for personal use only.

His response, in which he rejects the invitation utterly and and presents May with some uncomfortable truths, is something to read and share. Emphases have been added by the SKWAWKBOX:

From: Gus John

Subject: Re: Invitation to a reception for the 70th anniversary of Windrush at 10 Downing Street [OFFICIAL]

Date: 19 June 2018 at 01:43:34 BST

Open Letter to Prime Minister Theresa May

Dear Prime Minister

Re:   Invitation to a reception for the 70th anniversary of Windrush at 10 Downing Street

It was with both surprise and utter bemusement that I received your invitation to the above.

We in this country have become used to foreign heads of state and leaders of movements being made international pariahs and being refused entry to the UK.   Robert Mugabe, Muammar Gaddafi, Louis Farrakhan, among others.   In my book, Prime Minister, the policies of your government, the incitement to racial hatred that they undoubtedly represent and the denial of fundamental human rights and the right to life itself to citizens of the Windrush generation who devoted all of their adult years to the development of Britain are enough to make you no less a pariah in the eyes of the Commonwealth and of the freedom-loving world than those whom your government over time has sought to ostracise.

In July 2013, with you as Home Secretary,  your government’s own vans were running around London boroughs with a large ‘immigrant’ population and displaying huge billboards targeted at ‘illegal’ immigrants and telling them to ‘Go Home or Face Arrest’.  What is worse is that your government lied not just to ‘illegal immigrants’ whom it wished to flush out, but to the public whom it wished to impress with its ‘zero tolerance’ stance on illegal immigration: ‘106 Arrests Last Week In Your Area’.  It turns out that 106 was the total number of arrests across the 6 pilot boroughs in which the vans had operated over a period of two days.  Arrests, not prosecutions or deportations. In your attempts to create ‘a hostile environment’ for ‘illegal’ immigrants, you placed 4 generations of Windrush arrivants and their descendants in the sight of any would be defender of white Britain and its borders, including racists and neo-fascists who felt they had a patriotic duty to help prevent Britain from being ‘swamped’ by any means necessary, including murder and mayhem.

On 16 June 2016, Jo Cox MP was brutally murdered in a street in her constituency of Batley & Spen in West Yorkshire by the white supremacist, Thomas Mair.  Cox was unequivocal in her support for refugees, asylum seekers and economic migrants escaping armed conflict, genocide and hunger and risking their lives in rickety boats to cross the Mediterranean into Europe.  She was doing this in a country where the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) was focusing the two main parliamentary parties on the anger of the white British population at their failure to control immigration and reclaim ‘Little England’ from the clutches and the legal strictures of the European Union, its Schengen Treaty, free movement of labour and human rights protocols.

Despite that horrific murder and all it said about Britain and its relentless conflation of immigration and race, the British electorate voted by a narrow margin to leave the European Union and ‘claim our country back’.  What is worse, both as Home Secretary and as the post-Cameron Prime Minister, you redoubled your efforts to create a ‘hostile environment’ for immigrants, condemning long retired workers of the Windrush generation to uncertainty, misery, physical hardship and denial of the same life saving health services for which they had paid throughout their working lives.

It may well be, Prime Minister, that you would have the good grace to take the opportunity to tell your invited guests how sorry you are for your part in all of that brutal, inhumane and racist treatment of former colonised Africans who have and had no interest other than to serve this nation and do their best by their communities and families.  But, one of the uglier manifestations of whiteness in this society is an unassailable sense of in-your-face entitlement.  I do not believe that you are entitled to the magnanimity of those misguided folk who might well be happy to receive your invitation and to attend your Windrush anniversary celebration.  As far as I am concerned, I stand with those who suffered detention, deportation and mental ill health, some of whom even now face an earlier death as a result of being denied access to health services on account of your ‘hostile environment’ regime.

It would be a shameful betrayal to them all to accept your invitation and join you in Downing Street to mark the arrival of the Windrush 70 years ago and the contribution to British society of those whom it brought and their descendants.

Invite me again, please, when you meet with civil society to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission on Reparations for African Enslavement which you would no doubt waste no more time in establishing on the back of your government’s Windrush scandal.

Yours, with sadness

Professor Gus John
Equality and Human Rights Campaigner

Revealed: The £200,000 food bank warehouse in Amber Rudd’s Hastings constituency caused by the Universal Credit debacle

David Hencke

amber rudd Amber Rudd- former home secretary and MP for Hastings as the Universal Credit debacle rolls out in her constituency

CROSS POSTED IN BYLINE.COM

The  billion pound plus failure of the implementation of Universal Credit is rightly condemned by the National Audit Office in a report published today.

Aimed to save money, get everybody back to work, simplify a complex benefit system and to be easily implemented.  Instead it is going to cost more, is years behind schedule, discriminates against disabled and poorly educated people, and the government has plans to force the elderly not entitled to a pension to have to use it when it  changes entitlement to pension credit ( see my earlier blog here)

But it is also having appalling consequences for food banks, landlords, council and housing association tenants – as the example in Amber Rudd’s constituency ( details down below show).

In the meantime ministers…

View original post 624 more words

Dr Phillip Lee:- Tory Minister resigns over Brexit

Resigning as a minister from the Government is a very difficult decision because it goes against every grain in my soul. The very word resign conveys a sense of giving up, but that is the last thing I will do. I take public service seriously and responsibly. That is the spirit that has always guided me as a doctor and continues to guide me as a politician.

For me, resigning is a last resort – not something that I want to do but something I feel I must do because, for me, such a serious principle is being breached that I would find it hard to live with myself afterwards if I let it pass. I come to this decision after a great deal of personal reflection and discussion with family, friends and trusted colleagues.

The main reason for my taking this decision now is the Brexit process and the Government’s wish to limit Parliament’s role in contributing to the final outcome in a vote that takes place today.

If, in the future, I am to look my children in the eye and honestly say that I did my best for them I cannot, in all good conscience, support how our country’s exit from the EU looks set to be delivered.

As a Member of Parliament, I also have a major responsibility to my constituency of Bracknell. In extensive consultations with local employers, both large and small, I have been warned that they expect Brexit as it is currently being pursued, whatever the negotiated settlement, will damage their business. I have spoken to people, many of whom have lived, worked and raised their family here, whose fears for their futures I am not always able to allay. Regrettably, it seems inevitable that the people, economy and culture of my constituency will be affected negatively, and I cannot ignore that it is to them that I owe my first responsibility.

Sadly, from within government I have found it virtually impossible to help bring sufficient change to the course on which we are bound.

I voted to remain in the European Union and have not changed my view that continued membership would have been the better strategic course. Even so, I believe that it would be impossible and wrong to seek to go back to how things were before the referendum. We cannot and should not turn back the clock.

However, as the negotiations are unfolding, two things are becoming clear.

• The practicalities, logistics and implications of leaving the EU are far more complex than was ever envisaged and certainly more complex than the people were told in 2016. The UK is not going to be ready in time, neither is the EU, and both would suffer from a rushed or fudged agreement.

• The outcome that is emerging will be neither fully to leave the EU, nor fully to stay. This is not an outcome for which anyone knowingly voted. In my view, this raises the important principle of legitimacy: I do not believe it would be right for the Government to pursue such a course without a plan to seek a confirmatory mandate for the outcome. And I believe that Parliament should have the power to ask the Government to adjust its course in the best interests of the people whom its Members represent.

In my medical experience, if a course of treatment is not working, then I review it. I also have a duty to get my patient’s informed consent for that action.

If Brexit is worth doing, then it is certainly worth doing well; regardless of how long that takes. It is, however, irresponsible to proceed as we are, so we should:

• recognise that the UK and EU are not ready for Brexit and pause, extend or revoke Article 50 so that we do not leave before we are ready.

• re-engage with our European and international friends to talk about how to achieve the aims that we share for the future in ways that respect individual countries’ interests and sovereignty. Since 2016, electorates in many countries across Europe have expressed similar concerns to those that we expressed in the referendum and so much is changing, and will continue to change, across the whole of our continent.

• empower our Parliament so that its role is not limited to making fake choices – such as between a ‘bad deal’ and a cliff-edge ‘no deal’. Our Parliament should be able to direct our Government to change course in our interests. In all conscience, I cannot support the Government’s decision to oppose this amendment because doing so breaches such fundamental principles of human rights and Parliamentary sovereignty. A vote between bad and worse is not a meaningful vote. And I cannot bring myself to vote for it in the bastion of liberty, freedom and human rights that is our Parliament.

When the Government is able to set out an achievable, clearly defined path – one that has been properly considered, whose implications have been foreseen, and that is rooted in reality and evidence, not dreams and dogma – it should go to the people, once again, to seek their confirmation.

I will miss the Ministry of Justice and the enormous privilege of guiding our Government’s work to turn around the lives of vulnerable young offenders and female offenders; to mobilise the remarkable power of sport to transform lives and cut crime; and to improve how we deal with offenders’ health and mental health which drives so much human behaviour.

I have had the privilege to work with inspiring, dedicated people; to be touched by the appalling stories that some of those caught up in our criminal justice system have shared with me – both victims and offenders; and in a small way to bring some influence to bear to help make our society more just and more secure.

The experience has been deeply humbling. For the last two years, I have been completely committed to enabling our criminal justice system to serve our society better. There is so much more to do and I wish the department and its excellent ministerial team all the strength that they need to drive through the necessary reforms. I regret that I feel forced to leave and will remain a strong supporter.

I strongly supported Theresa May’s bid to lead the Conservative Party in 2016. I have great respect for her and still believe that she is the best person to lead the country at this exceptionally difficult time. But the fact is that we have to make many big changes for our country to have a positive future. There is a great deal of work to be done to lead with more strength, vision and integrity. We must be honest and open at all times with each other and with the public. We must renew our effort to bring the nation back together and proceed in our collective national interest, drawing on the best talent our country has to offer.

We must also have an eye beyond our shores, sustaining our European friendships through a difficult time because what is very clear is that, in our interconnected age, it is nations with allies that will thrive.

It is important that individual ministers and Parliamentarians should be able to influence and speak up on these issues. But effective Government in our country also relies on the important principle of collective responsibility. Resigning my post in this Government will allow me to work towards what I believe can be a better future, inside or outside the EU, for my children, my constituents and my country.

That will start today when MPs vote on the House of Lords’ amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill and I will support the amendment which – if it is adopted – will empower Parliament to reject a bad deal and direct the Government to re-enter discussions, extending or pausing negotiations which are being badly rushed because of the deadline that Article 50 imposes.

We will not change our country overnight – but we can and must hand our children a better legacy.

The Sun’s Great British Brexit Fail

Brilliant brilliant brilliant
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Pin Prick

The next 48 hours see a series of crucial votes on Leaving the EU in the Commons and with the whole sorry disaster sitting on a knife edge, Tory Remain MPs have been urged to rally round the PM Theresa May to help destroy Britain (er…. help get our country back). With Brexit beginning to prove about as popular as a bad case of piles on a forced march to a Pyongyang labour camp, The Sun has today printed a front page that looks as if it has been knocked up by an intern who – crucially – failed the photo-shop module at GCSE.

The influence of the once powerful tabloid is waning and with circulation dwindling below 1.5 million the paper is struggling to remain top bully in the media playground.

What better way to assert itself and regain some of that lost influence than by chivvying MPs along…

View original post 847 more words