Britain's response to Russia

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Here's why it's not manslaughter.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/h ... nslaughter

Without trawling through in detail, is the general gist of it that if you kill someone then you as guilty of the murder of that person as you are of anyone else who gets caught up in it?

I can't see how this can't be murder. Surely to say otherwise would be like the scenario where you try to kill Trump by nuking him and then saying you're only guilty of murdering Trump and not everyone who happened to be around him?

Otherwise you could leave land mines lying around and when someone got killed as a result take the defence that you never intended to kill anyone with them.

Wanton carelessness is surely not a defence......

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Here's why it's not manslaughter.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/h ... nslaughter

Without trawling through in detail, is the general gist of it that if you kill someone then you as guilty of the murder of that person as you are of anyone else who gets caught up in it?

I can't see how this can't be murder. Surely to say otherwise would be like the scenario where you try to kill Trump by nuking him and then saying you're only guilty of murdering Trump and not everyone who happened to be around him?

Otherwise you could leave land mines lying around and when someone got killed as a result take the defence that you never intended to kill anyone with them.

Wanton carelessness is surely not a defence......

In a word, yes.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Here's why it's not manslaughter.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/h ... nslaughter

Without trawling through in detail, is the general gist of it that if you kill someone then you as guilty of the murder of that person as you are of anyone else who gets caught up in it?

I can't see how this can't be murder. Surely to say otherwise would be like the scenario where you try to kill Trump by nuking him and then saying you're only guilty of murdering Trump and not everyone who happened to be around him?

Otherwise you could leave land mines lying around and when someone got killed as a result take the defence that you never intended to kill anyone with them.

Wanton carelessness is surely not a defence......

In a word, yes.

merci - every day is a school day

robert88

Every day is the day after the dog ate my homework

It seems that the dose administered to Dawn Sturgess was a strong one. There is no sign of a container and as far as I am aware there is no sign the Skripals container has been found. The culprits have been competent enough to leave no trace other than the victims.

How likely is it that the latest incident is simply a consequence of the first and not a fresh attack?

A factor in the 2nd instance is the link with the Baptist Church. The Russian state fully accepts the value of religion and under Putin that means Russian Orthodox and other brands are at best objects of suspicion. Russian Baptists are having a tough time:

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Russian- ... 42323.html
https://www.wordandway.org/news/world/i ... sts-others

US Baptists operating in Russia have fallen foul of the Russian Leader:

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/ ... ins-russia

Alternatively it's all purely accidental or something.

surrey_commuter

Robert88 wrote:

Every day is the day after the dog ate my homework

It seems that the dose administered to Dawn Sturgess was a strong one. There is no sign of a container and as far as I am aware there is no sign the Skripals container has been found. The culprits have been competent enough to leave no trace other than the victims.

How likely is it that the latest incident is simply a consequence of the first and not a fresh attack?

A factor in the 2nd instance is the link with the Baptist Church. The Russian state fully accepts the value of religion and under Putin that means Russian Orthodox and other brands are at best objects of suspicion. Russian Baptists are having a tough time:

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Russian- ... 42323.html
https://www.wordandway.org/news/world/i ... sts-others

US Baptists operating in Russia have fallen foul of the Russian Leader:

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/ ... ins-russia

Alternatively it's all purely accidental or something.

I am going to vote for a junkie finding the wrong used syringe

robert88

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Every day is the day after the dog ate my homework

It seems that the dose administered to Dawn Sturgess was a strong one. There is no sign of a container and as far as I am aware there is no sign the Skripals container has been found. The culprits have been competent enough to leave no trace other than the victims.

How likely is it that the latest incident is simply a consequence of the first and not a fresh attack?

A factor in the 2nd instance is the link with the Baptist Church. The Russian state fully accepts the value of religion and under Putin that means Russian Orthodox and other brands are at best objects of suspicion. Russian Baptists are having a tough time:

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Russian- ... 42323.html
https://www.wordandway.org/news/world/i ... sts-others

US Baptists operating in Russia have fallen foul of the Russian Leader:

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/ ... ins-russia

Alternatively it's all purely accidental or something.

I am going to vote for a junkie finding the wrong used syringe

I am sure you know more about such things than I do. However, my pathological aversion to the Russian state (and Chelsea FC) makes it impossible for me to believe it's not more sinister.

Ben6899

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am going to vote for a junkie finding the wrong used syringe

Are/were they junkies?

surrey_commuter

Ben6899 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am going to vote for a junkie finding the wrong used syringe

Are/were they junkies?

in the early days I definitely read one was a junkie and one had alcohol problems and thus were less likely to survive. The media seems to have gone very quiet on this detail.

Ben6899

I see. And I think your recollection is likely correct... I was astonished to read the deceased lady was only 44; she looked old enough to be my mum's older sister.

A mate had a thought that they might have been collecting tab ends to make roll-ups...

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am going to vote for a junkie finding the wrong used syringe

Are/were they junkies?

in the early days I definitely read one was a junkie and one had alcohol problems and thus were less likely to survive. The media seems to have gone very quiet on this detail.

Possibly because it's not that relevant.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am going to vote for a junkie finding the wrong used syringe

Are/were they junkies?

in the early days I definitely read one was a junkie and one had alcohol problems and thus were less likely to survive. The media seems to have gone very quiet on this detail.

Possibly because it's not that relevant.

likelihood of survival and where they may have come into contact surely has relevance

Ben6899

I think it's totally relevant. Someone's lifestyle drives their possible whereabouts, actions, habits, propensities...

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am going to vote for a junkie finding the wrong used syringe

Are/were they junkies?

in the early days I definitely read one was a junkie and one had alcohol problems and thus were less likely to survive. The media seems to have gone very quiet on this detail.

Possibly because it's not that relevant.

likelihood of survival and where they may have come into contact surely has relevance

To the medical team treating them and the investigation team of course. Less so to media.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am going to vote for a junkie finding the wrong used syringe

Are/were they junkies?

in the early days I definitely read one was a junkie and one had alcohol problems and thus were less likely to survive. The media seems to have gone very quiet on this detail.

Possibly because it's not that relevant.

likelihood of survival and where they may have come into contact surely has relevance

To the medical team treating them and the investigation team of course. Less so to media.

what about local residents?

robert88

If you live in an area where Novichock had killed one person and made 3 seriously ill you would be upset, worried and annoyed.

If you were told that the latest victims had an 'eccentric' lifestyle and were partly to blame for their own misfortune you might be reassured. (unless you had children who might pick up mysterious objects as children do).

So yeah, best if they are junkies who self-inflict their misfortune.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I am going to vote for a junkie finding the wrong used syringe

Are/were they junkies?

in the early days I definitely read one was a junkie and one had alcohol problems and thus were less likely to survive. The media seems to have gone very quiet on this detail.

Possibly because it's not that relevant.

likelihood of survival and where they may have come into contact surely has relevance

To the medical team treating them and the investigation team of course. Less so to media.

what about local residents?

I would expect that the investigation team to have considered that and put out a warning if necessary, a bit like they do when there is a drug related death that is thought to be related to a specific batch. Relying on the media to warn the public off vaguely defined "areas that drug users frequent" would probably do more harm than good.

Equally as R88 suggests that it's partly their fault for their life choices might give people a false sense of security.

bianchimoon

Putins' statement this morning that the two suspects 'are just normal civilians' and "called on the two men to appear in media to protest their innocence, saying he “wanted to address them directly”. Leaves it wide open for a journalist to ask "why they flew to the UK for three days and specifically visited Salisbury, did nothing other than look in shop windows before dashing back to Russia" Not that it matters in this post truth world.

john80

I recon they just had a look at things to do in Salisbury whilst on a slow day at work and booked flights that day. I mean to miss out on a plane museum and that cathedral.

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attractio ... gland.html

No sorry still going with the work for the state and had been instructed to kill a former associate and his family.

robert88

bianchimoon wrote:

Putins' statement this morning that the two suspects 'are just normal civilians' and "called on the two men to appear in media to protest their innocence, saying he “wanted to address them directly”. Leaves it wide open for a journalist to ask "why they flew to the UK for three days and specifically visited Salisbury, did nothing other than look in shop windows before dashing back to Russia" Not that it matters in this post truth world.

The truth is not a matter of fact, it’s a matter of consensus.

fenix

Do we really think the two men are still around to appear ?
It would be neat for Putin if they could never be found.

john80

But why would Putin kill two ordinary civilians on a sight seeing trip. No reason what so ever.

fenix

I've not even been to Salisbury. I'm quite jealous of them that they got to see the sights.

bianchimoon

Fenix wrote:

I've not even been to Salisbury. I'm quite jealous of them that they got to see the sights.

I was going to go once, but thought the 150 mile trip was a hell of a long way to go for just 3 days.

drlodge

Robert88 wrote:

The truth is not a matter of fact, it’s a matter of consensus.

A consensus is not necessarily the truth, it might be a religion though or an ideology.

FocusZing

drlodge wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

The truth is not a matter of fact, it’s a matter of consensus.

A consensus is not necessarily the truth, it might be a religion though or an ideology.

Huh huh huh hu-uh huh...

bompington

drlodge wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

The truth is not a matter of fact, it’s a matter of consensus.

A consensus is not necessarily the truth, it might be a religion though or an ideology.

I think I may hear a whoosh there.

But seriously, it's not difficult for the Russian state to adapt to, and make use of, our wonderful post-modern world where the truth is whatever you want it to be - because from its inception the Soviet state (and Putin is Soviet in all but name) has been deliberately built on lies and deception.

Vladimir Putin wrote:

Salisbury poison suspects are Russian 'civilians' and hopes they will 'tell their story'

- the only word in that you can definitely believe is "story".

FishFish

bompington wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

The truth is not a matter of fact, it’s a matter of consensus.

A consensus is not necessarily the truth, it might be a religion though or an ideology.

I think I may hear a whoosh there.

But seriously, it's not difficult for the Russian state to adapt to, and make use of, our wonderful post-modern world where the truth is whatever you want it to be - because from its inception the Soviet state (and Putin is Soviet in all but name) has been deliberately built on lies and deception.

[quote=".

I think this is right. This approach has its basis in Wittgenstein who studied language and taught at Cambridge for years. His proposal was to perform an experiment on words and the result of that would determine the meaning of the word. So truth as a concept can be experimented on to assess its meaning in an analytical and philosophical reference frame - not a literal - comparison of alternative states of a particular truth. Whilst consensus is an obvious approach it is not a philosophical approach. So thankyou for enlightening us.

robert88

FishFish wrote:

bompington wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

The truth is not a matter of fact, it’s a matter of consensus.

A consensus is not necessarily the truth, it might be a religion though or an ideology.

I think I may hear a whoosh there.

But seriously, it's not difficult for the Russian state to adapt to, and make use of, our wonderful post-modern world where the truth is whatever you want it to be - because from its inception the Soviet state (and Putin is Soviet in all but name) has been deliberately built on lies and deception.

[quote=".

I think this is right. This approach has its basis in Wittgenstein who studied language and taught at Cambridge for years. His proposal was to perform an experiment on words and the result of that would determine the meaning of the word. So truth as a concept can be experimented on to assess its meaning in an analytical and philosophical reference frame - not a literal - comparison of alternative states of a particular truth. Whilst consensus is an obvious approach it is not a philosophical approach. So thankyou for enlightening us.

As the era of artitificial intelligence continues to dawn it is clear that the definition of truth becomes increasingly far removed from the concept as 'understood' by Trumpians. Truth is a mathematically definable state a.k.a axiomatic probability, without which the basis of AI cannot be established. In the absence of complete data it's possible to substitute fuzzy logic for the boolean variety, a process that exists as an aberration in digital computing but would be genuinely incorporated into the analogue version, as it is in the human brain. The development of such a computer is the step-change required to move on from the clunky old digital version. A kind of multi-dimensional calculus.

rolf_f

Fenix wrote:

Do we really think the two men are still around to appear ?
It would be neat for Putin if they could never be found.

What do you think happened to them? Jettisoned into a Shark tank? Dumped in the back of a Zil limousine and crushed? This isn't a James Bond film!

shirley_basso

Rolf F wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Do we really think the two men are still around to appear ?
It would be neat for Putin if they could never be found.

What do you think happened to them? Jettisoned into a Shark tank? Dumped in the back of a Zil limousine and crushed? This isn't a James Bond film!

No, it's Russia where agents are sent across the world on 3 day sightseeing trips to poison defectors.