The Skripals - an update - 04/09/2018

Yulia Skripal discharged from Salisbury hospital

RT,

10 April, 2018

Yulia Skripal, the daughter of former double agent Sergei, has been discharged from hospital, five weeks after being exposed to a nerve agent in Salisbury.

Skripal and her father were found slumped on a bench in Salisbury on March 4, after they were attacked with an A-234 nerve agent, similar to Novichok. The director of Salisbury District Hospital said Tuesday that Yulia has been discharged and her father’s health is improving.

Since the attack on the ex-Russian double agent and his daughter, the British government has placed the blame at Russia’s feet; a claim which Moscow has repeatedly denied.

Last week, Yulia, 33, spoke to her Moscow-based cousin Viktoria, who recorded the phone conversation and shared it with Russian state media. In the recording, Yulia told her cousin that she was “being discharged soon.” She also said that her father Sergei, 66, was “resting now, he’s sleeping.” She added: “Everyone’s health is OK. No one has had any irreversible [harm].”

The former director general of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence has offered a comprehensive dismissal of the UK’s claim that Russia was behind the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal.

On Wednesday, Porton Down Chief Executive Gary Aitkenhead revealed that the laboratory was unable to confirm the origin of the chemical agent used in the attack. Aitkenhead’s comments came after Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said in a German TV interview that Porton Down had said the substance used to poison the Skripals was unequivocally Russian.

Skripal Poison Case Becoming British Hostage Scenario

By Finian Cunningham

April 09, 2018 "Information Clearing House" - The British denial of a visitor visa to a Skripal family relative from Russia is fueling concern that the whole affair is far more sinister than what the British government and media have been claiming.

Far from the Skripal father and daughter being the alleged victims of a Russian assassination plot, it now seems increasingly apparent that they are being held against their will by Britain’s authorities. In short, hostages of the British state.

From the outset of the alleged poisoning incident in Salisbury on March 4, the official British narrative has been pocked suspiciously with inconsistencies. The lightning-fast rush to judgment by the British government – within days – to blame the Kremlin for “a brazen murder attempt” was perhaps the main giveaway that the narrative was following a script and foregone conclusion to incriminate Russia.

Last week, the saga took several significant twists raising more doubts about the official British narrative. First, British scientists at the Porton Down warfare laboratory admitted that they hadn’t in fact confirmed the alleged nerve agent used against the Skripals originated from Russia. That admission spectacularly exposed earlier British government claims as false, if not barefaced lies.

Secondly, it emerged that potentially key witness-material was destroyed by the British. Three pet animals in the Salisbury home of Sergei Skripal were declared dead and their remains incinerated. Autopsies could have shed light on the nature of the alleged nerve agent used against the Skripals. Why were the animal remains incinerated? And why did the British authorities disclose the fate of the animals only after the matter was raised by the Russian envoy to the UN Security Council on Thursday?

Thirdly, there is the strangely callous way that the British authorities have refused a visitor visa to a Skripal family relative from Russia who was intending to fly to England to be with her relatives while they are reportedly recuperating from the alleged poison attack.

Russian national Victoria Skripal revealed on Friday to Russian news media that she was refused a visa by British authorities to visit her relatives – cousin Yulia and uncle Sergei – who are reportedly confined to a hospital in Salisbury.

The day before her visa application was rejected, Victoria had a brief telephone conversation with Yulia. It appears that Victoria recorded the conversation and made it available to Russian media to broadcast. The transcript shows that Yulia’s words were guarded. She was obviously not comfortable with speaking freely. Their phone call ended abruptly. But she did manage to advise her cousin in Russia that the latter would probably not be granted a visitor visa. Why would she say such a thing?

British media quickly tried to smear the Russian cousin, Victoria. A BBC journalist said that the British authorities “suspected that Victoria was being used as a pawn by the Kremlin”. Russian’s foreign ministry hit back at that suggestion, saying it was a despicable slur.

For her part, Victoria Skripal told Russian media that she thinks the British authorities have “something to hide” by refusing to grant her a permit to Britain in order to visit her cousin and uncle. Was her visa application rejected by the British authorities because she had the “audacity” to record the phone call with her cousin and make it available to Russian media?

Far more plausible is not that Victoria is a “Kremlin pawn” but that the British fear that Victoria would not be a “London pawn”. The worst thing for the British authorities would be for an independent-minded Skripal relative coming to the Salisbury hospital and asking critical questions about the nature of why her relatives are being held there.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if several other Skripal relatives in Russia were to make similar applications for visitor visas to Britain. Surely, the British authorities could not turn them all down?

For over a month now since the March 4 incident in Salisbury, the Russian consular representatives in Britain have not been allowed access to the Skripal pair, allegedly being treated in hospital.

Fair enough, Sergei Skripal is a disgraced former Russian spy who had been living in England for nearly eight years. He was exiled there by Moscow as part of a spy-swap with Britain’s foreign intelligence MI6 whom Skripal had served as a double agent. It is believed he was given British citizenship by the London authorities.

However, his daughter, 33-year-old Yulia, is a citizen of the Russian Federation. She was visiting her father on holiday when the pair became ill – apparently from exposure to a nerve agent – while sitting in a public park in Salisbury.

Yulia and the Russian authorities are therefore entitled under international law to have consular contact. The Russian embassy in London has been repeatedly denied access by the British authorities to one of its citizens. On the face of it, that is an outrageous breach of international law by the British.

Significantly, Yulia did not express to her cousin during their phone conversation that she did not want to see the Russian consular people. That phone call was obviously initiated by Yulia. Her Russian-based cousin at one point asked her, “Is this your phone?”.

How Yulia got use of the phone is a good question. Was it a hospital staff member who felt obliged to allow her a quick call home? Evidently, the call was held in a rushed manner, and Yulia felt constrained to talk in detail about her confinement. And why would she warn her cousin in Russia that the latter would not be given a visa before the application result was known?

It is speculated in British media – most probably at the behest of briefings by shadowy state officials – that Yulia Skripal does not want to see her cousin, or the Russian consular representatives. Even though Yulia did not express that in her phone call. If Yulia didn’t want to see her cousin, why would she bother calling her, apparently out of the blue?

The speculation about Yulia’s preferences are based on the official British premise that the Russian state attempted to carry out an assassination with a toxic chemical on her father. It is therefore insinuated by the official British narrative that Yulia would not want to see the Russian authorities.

But that logic depends entirely on the plausibility of the British version of events. That is, that a Russian state operation used a Russian nerve agent to try to kill Sergei Skripal, and his daughter as collateral damage.

That British version has relied totally on assertion, innuendo and unverified claims made by politicians briefed by secret services. Claims which we are now seeing to be unfounded, as the Porton Down scientists disclosed last week.

At no point have the British produced any evidence to substantiate their high-flown allegations against Russia. Indeed, Britain refuses to give Russia access to alleged samples in order to carry out an independent chemical analysis.

The entire British case relies on a presumption of guilt and a despicable prejudice towards Russia as a malicious actor. That’s it entirely. British prejudice and contempt for due process.

However, what if the Russian government were correct? What if the British state carried out a macabre false flag operation by stealthily injuring the Skripals with some kind of chemical in order to blame it on Russia? For the plausible purpose of adding one more smear campaign in order to demonize and delegitimize Russia as an international power.

No doubt, the situation is disturbing and disorientating especially for Yulia Skripal who apparently was simply visiting her father in England for a happy family reunion.

More sinister, however, is the apparent lack of free will being afforded to Yulia Skripal. The British official position simply conflates their innuendo of a Russian plot, an innuendo which is increasingly untenable.

The denial of a visitor visa to Yulia’s family relatives from Russia points to the sinister conclusion that the British authorities are engaging in a macabre propaganda stunt. Moreover, a propaganda stunt involving the criminal assault on a Russian citizen and the ongoing illegal detention of that citizen.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was originally published by "Strategic Culture Foundation" -

What exactly is happening at Salisbury hospital?

Salisbury NHS Trust hospital

Off-Guardan,

6 April, 2018

The UK has publicly said it is looking for “transparency” in the Skripal investigation. Currently this seems no more true than any other part of the UK’s narrative. In fact the opposite would seem to be the case. The situation with the Skripals in regard to Salisbury NHS Trust hopsital is particularly opaque as things stand.

Just to quickly recap.

1. The March 22 High Court judgment by Mr Justice Williams makes it clear the UK govt lawyers were trying to minimise or even deny the existence of the Skripals’ Russian relatives, claiming there was very little evidence there even were any such relatives, even after Sergey’s niece Viktoria had been interviewed by UK media outlets, and using this fabricated “lack of evidence” as a reason for not contacting the relatives or involving them in considerations of Yulia Skripals’ welfare.

2. The Russian embassy has repeatedly said it is being illegally denied access to the Skripals, and there is evidence the pair have been denied due process.

3. There are claims Yulia’s Russian cellphone has been disconnected or denied service.

4. The alleged phone call (on a “temporary phone”) from Yulia to her cousin Viktoria on April 4, if genuine, implies this reluctance to involve the relatives may be extending into discouraging or even denying Yulia access to her family in Russia.

5. The alleged statement issued by the Metropolitan Police on Yulia’s “behalf” only hours after the details of the above phone call were published has puzzled some people. It is quite generic and broadly similar in terms of sentiment (thanks to hospital and people of Salisbury, request for privacy etc) to the statement allegedly made by DS Bailey after his alleged recovery in late March.

Did Yulia contribute to that statement?

Does it reflect her real feelings or opinions? Why can’t we hear her own words?

6. The UK is apparently using questionable means to ensure the results of the OPCW investigation can remain secret. It has said it does not want them publicised and does not want them shared with Russia. Exactly what form of “transparency” does this represent?

7. Slipping down the Memory Hole is the still apparently unresolved question of consultant physician Mr Stephen Davies’ letter to the Times of March 16, and what he meant by the words “no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning in Salisbury.” If Mr Davies has clarified his meaning, we have not heard about it, which leaves open the possibility that a senior doctor involved in treating the Skripals is of the opinion they were not poisoned by a nerve agent.

Major questions would seem to be:

How is Yulia being kept? Is she free to contact anyone she chooses? What information is she being given about her poisoning, and by whom?

Can the nature of what happened to the Skripals be established objectively (ie were they in fact poisoned by a nerve agent pr did something else befall them?)

Is the UK about to allege or imply Yulia does not want to contact her own government? If they take this step what happens next?