On 3 March 2018 a former Russian double
agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found slumped on a park
bench in Salisbury England, obviously suffering from the ill effects of
an undetermined substance. They were transported to hospital and placed
in intensive care. The initial hospital reports made no mention of
their being the victims of any nerve agent attack. It seems that they
were initially thought by the medical staff to be suffering from the
effects of Fentanyl, an illegal but widely used drug in England. This
diagnosis was based upon the symptoms exhibited by Sergei and Yulia.
Six months later that is still the sum
total of the information that can be unequivocally accepted. As to what
substance they ingested, where, how and by whom it was administered is
no better known now then it was that March afternoon in a small
provincial town. Salisbury was hitherto better known for its magnificent
cathedral, where ironically is found one of the best surviving copies
of Magna Carta, and its proximity both to the ancient prehistoric
monument of Stonehenge and more ominously Britain’s chemical warfare
establishment of Porton Down.
The lack of specific knowledge as to
what, how, by whom and precisely where the Skripals became infected did
not stop British prime minister Theresa May launching an extraordinary
and factually inaccurate statement to the British House of Commons in
which she held the Russian government responsible for what had allegedly
happened to the Skripals.
Her statement was not only replete with
factual inaccuracies; it shredded the last vestiges of what was once
called British justice.
Those principles are drilled into every
law student exposed to the common law system. They include the
presumption of innocence; not charging anyone with a crime until there
is at least sufficient evidence to create a prima facie case; the right
to subject the allegations to rigorous testing as to veracity,
admissibility and scientific credibility; and importantly in this case
disclosing the evidence to the accused who then has the right to have
the prosecution case argued before an impartial tribunal.
Of further fundamental importance is
that the onus of proving the case lies upon the accuser. Mrs May’s
demands that Russia “explain” what happened makes a travesty of this
paramount principle. It reverses the onus of proof, an astonishing
departure from principle that nonetheless has been completely
disregarded by the western media.
None of these principles can be observed
in the Skripal case. Mrs May compounded her disregarding of basic
principles by making a series of statements that were demonstrably
untrue. One example is that the alleged substance used, the suitably
Russian sounding ‘Novichok’ could only have originated in Russia.
As innumerable articles on this topic
have subsequently pointed out, the United States alone has multiple
patents for the Novichok class of nerve agents. Several countries are
known to hold samples, including the United Kingdom at their own Porton
Down facility.
https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/16/the-skripals-victims-or-pawns-in-a-wider-geopolitical-game/
https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/16/the-skripals-victims-or-pawns-in-a-wider-geopolitical-game/
https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/16/the-skripals-victims-or-pawns-in-a-wider-geopolitical-game/
No comments:
Post a Comment