Dastardly Deed

Dastardly Deed

There has been other occasions on which one might depict as a dastardly deed, a phrase that would seem to indicate that such a deed could be ascribed to juvenile books of fiction with an act that is not recognised as being a act reasonable given the circumstances, not being fair in the occasion and in selecting one side against the other deciding which is in the ‘right’ for when the deed took place. Dastardly is such a lame description almost verging on, seen from a certain perspective, with known understandable connotations, humorous. But and it has to be a BIG BUT the occurrence in March this year was indeed considerably more dastardly in every way imaginable with consequences considerable more disconcerting and within which one can glimpse an illustration of the shape of things to come.

This was the deliberate attempted to murder, or at the very least serious inflict lifelong disablement of two people Sergei Skripal and Yulia on 4^th march 2018 and the fact that one of them had been a Russian spy with residency right in the UK and the other his daughter on a visit to him, opened up a whole new vista of intrigue particular after the murder of Alexander Litvinenco in November 2006 by polonium 210 poison, with others past Russian deaths now lifted into the limelight of further investigation.

One can recap the whole event on day by day basis fluxing with the accusation of unsubstantiated illusive facts chucked out by the governments’ heads – Prime Minister T. May (Maybot), Defence secretary G. Williamson (young turk) and Foreign secretary B. Johnson (clown) to be meet with defensive counter facts by Russia. It was a pantomime performance that one could see was a knee jerk reaction to the wide overspill damage of the attempted (so far) murderous act without actually understanding, in any evidential depth, what had taken place, by what, by whom, etc and with the anodyne pronouncement of Williamson the obvious lack of the knowledge of due process that was required before slinging attack censures at Russia, built it can be said on the earlier polonium attack laid with more substance of proof in Russia’s lap. It was stupid position setting, which has seen both sides back into an un-illuminating corner.

In that The Salisbury Incident was a deliberate attack on a citizen of the UK, on its sovereign territory, was a deliberate act, there is no doubt. That it has caused such wide potential spread of unknown contagion; was an act of outright recklessness. With the limitation of no deaths yet and low numbers involved it does not fall into a precursor act of war. Had it affected of whole city of a million or more, would that do it? A couple of hundred or a few thousand might push the action ‘envelope’ however it is indisputable now with the start of UK’s independence sovereignty that no retaliatory action of real consequence would be possible other than with the ejecting of undesirable ‘diplomatic’ persons together with an avalanche of verbiage from associate friendly countries.  

    

The problem is that the substance presumed used was a novichok derivative, as described by Porton Down. It is a stable two part compound until combined and undetectable until used, it was developed 50 years ago by Russia and as part of an international agreement it like other items of chemical warfare, was supposed to have been destroyed, supervised by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) who assess, test, report and monitor use on any development in the chemical weapon field. A difficult task to follow through with but it relies on willing participants that understand that it is in their own best interest to rein back on development and the potential use of such unpredictable non unidirectional chemical weapons. However since the “Red Line” of Obama was ignored over Syria, it is evident that something in the acceptability and use has changed, not necessarily by states with administrative control but with the ability to make and use of chemicals slipping in to the hands of those with less restraint of warring scruples

For the moment although it is comfortable for the UK to point the finger of blame at the Russian state and Putin, one may have cause to think that this direct link is unlikely. With the terrible nature of such weapons, the ease of use and the potential huge human damage they can cause; states may wish to give the impression that there is a path to controlling them even by some limited means of mutual discussion (just like Nucks) and it plays well to reassure a nervous population that such a weapon can be contained ‘responsibly’

In blaming Russia the assumption is that Putin has control of all the levers of state and he can have full knowledge and authorisation in sanctioning state assassinations. It is a false impression; such overall control is impossible in a country that is held together by this solidarity illusion of a strongman reliant on the oligarch controlling structures that he has allowed to flourish which in most areas of influence is corrupt and does what it wants providing it pays dues to the ‘godfather’ statute structure. It is known that with the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a serious degradation in the control and location of percussion based weapons, radioactive and chemical material. It should not have been a surprise when some of it is used.

What is or should be of immediate and urgent interest is the ease at which such attack can take place. Just now the government has little idea of how or when the stuff got into the country (it suspects a route), does not know who has it, and seriously how much is in the UK nor, if there is a volume, where it is held! It is apparent that panic is driving investigative action and only latterly, late against agreed protocol, are inspectors of OPCW being called to validate what has being found. It is this panic that is evident in the extraordinary pronouncement being trailed out by the clown and turk to convince media consumption that there is absolutely substantive evidence as to who is responsible, Russia.

To many of the questions, it is likely that there are no irrefutable answers just yet other than to eventually identifying positively what the substance is, its contagion level, life span and antidote (no cure) however what is certain in the appalling situation is; it is hard to make and retain reliable friends but very easy to make enemies and this is not a time to stoke enmity without clear proof of blame. One can be certain that the use of highly toxic material to kill others on foreign soil is an extremely risky endeavour which despite Russia’s denial and Putin’s rejection of responsibility, will still be of serious apprehension to him and others in his circle; not to know who is behind this, where and how much is in the hands unknown people, or if and when another act might occur.

This is no dastardly deed to be grandstanding on with dicey statements laid out as facts as it will be a while before the truth is known, if ever but the ease in which such chaos can be caused to afflict a town centre does not bode well to pander to ignorance when the need is to gain hard information from whatever source and if that means treading softy with Russia to gain assistance in tracing sources, it has to be done for consequences can be terminally unpredictable.            

       

© Renot

193181804

I don't generally return to a past posting however one has been assessing media occurrences over the past few weeks related to this particular subject.

However despite all the artifice pantomime being played out by interested actors, over the attempt to find firm responsibility evidence, with which to continue accusing Putin and the Russian state for the novichok attack in the UK, uncertainty still rules. There is no irrefutable trail of proof that would pass a legal challenge, not that this is going to happen; there is the bullet, there is no gun, there is no finger print, there is no operative mind or hands but lots of speculative supposition and this has been a problem when it came to convincing countries to join with the UK in taking action against Russia.

Friendly countries, for obvious reasons, were reluctant to be as blindly ‘gung ho’ as the Turk and Clown, nor were they racing to support the Maybot who did not immediately appear to have a grip on the extravagant dynamics of the situation. Rightly they wanted to be given a proven evidence trail to nail onto Putin and his state or a lead to an independent player responsible for dishing out a lethal chemical assault, none was available.

This was the recalcitrant position up to the 2nd week of March, then in that week, in just one broadcast, it was announced by the BBC that a 4th person was being treated for novichok chemical poisoning. However since then there has been absolutely no further information on who, where, or condition of this 4th 'victim', nor was the announcement duplicated by any other outlet. Unlike the three poisoned already being given massive media exposure with regular update as to conditions, this 4th victim has been redacted.

It may be a fortuitous occurrences but this announcement soon corresponded with supportive actions from begged countries. One might think that this 4^th person was the proof offered to gain support, even better if it was of Russian origin but this was still though before the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had done any analysis or reported on the substance or potential source of novichok 235 and is still being investigated however that 4^th person if it existed has disappeared; might it be that it is hidden under media D notice?

An alternative view could be that this news item was either a slip up not meant to be released or is an example of the usual media false news reporting as is often the case now, with no retraction offered in any event; just forget it! One might wonder how in such an important event that such a mistake could be allowed to run without anyone challenging it for clarity but it happened.

104181920

Will

Will isn’t here anymore? One should not be surprised that this theme ‘will’ can cover a vast range of subjects but it does apply to a stage of being that maybe explains the extraordinary scope of events that are shaping the direction of this culture. Picking on just one issue does not really provide any clarity as to the reason that one issue is the way it is and how it came about without drawing in the surrounding influences and then offer some assessment on the associated impact all those other issues have on any one other issue in particular. It, ‘will’ is relevant now and what is apparent with the continuing ‘discussions’ to deliver a marvellous brexit for a golden future, is a subject that is being very patently underplayed. Despite the expressed ‘will’ of the people in the referendum, one pertinent issue (immigration) that drove the brexit decision is not being given any serious attention too by any politic party. That the reason this issue is being obfuscated with easy words of understated apprehension, so clearly a major factor in the overall malfeasances presentations stated in the brexit debacle, which said absolutely nothing of serious intent, other than obvious flippancy to the illusive offer that brexit will be easy and immigration will be stopped or controlled. This elusiveness is due to the stance that both parties hold on the liberal interpretation they have for immigration. The Cons like it due to its affect on its suppression of controlled organised labour force, absolves the economy from training cost, feeds the flexible employment sectors and restrains overall labour cost. Labour like it for similar reason but are also enthralled to the idea of being more ‘liberal’, welcomingly a multicultural vision and although agree that it does suppress wages they don’t want to recognise the problem as an immigration crisis but rather one that is caused from resentment at the lack of good employment prospect and low wages for indigenous nationals. For decades all parties have deliberately ignored the uncomfortable social displacement taking place, the lack of clear adoptable integration, to language, custom etc and in some discrete areas a structured move to override existing social and legal norms. The growing angst should have been recognised in the rise of BNP, UKIP and English League but main parties chose not to engage. It was a constituency political ineptitude of all members of parliament masked by the need to be an adherent of the doctrine of “political correctness” and not acknowledge an increase of racial, immigration displacement intolerance; disparaging those that raised any apprehension of the issues not being addressed. It was a failing that played out in the “will of the people” in 2015; a dereliction of overall constituency awareness and of the changes taking place leading to a rejection of the comfortable superiority perception of parliamentary democracy, a salutary lesson with untold consequences to follow.

That there has always been a method of control to immigration that no party has chosen to act with, is symptomatic of the deceit perpetrated by the state that has no intention of controlling immigration to an absorbable limit. There has, since being in the EU the provision for European nationals to move freely but there is no requirement for non Europeans to have open access across all borders and it is this porosity which is of particular concern but which is also inconsistent with not to be seen as being racist or being culturally selective in whom is allowed into the EU and directly from there into the UK. As, for the past years and more so in being driven by conflicts and impoverished economies; much of the movement in people has been from outside the EU – Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa etc all of which has been the main source of people dislocations contention.

For the UK there are simply too many people getting into the country no matter how it is being (debatably) dressed up as being good for the economy and filling skilled or labour intensive jobs not taken by the indigenous population. It is apparent from the ineffective insinuation on how to control numbers, yet is studiously ignoring the most obvious migrant miscellany that stands out which illustrates the subject is too sensitive to openly lay out a cogent strategy that will limit numbers. One can conclude that on this one issue the people’s desire to have stringent control on numbers is to be ignored. There will be no substantial purposeful legislation to curtail immigration. Even restricting causative ‘pull’ factors to aid a reduction, will be very problematic due to the bargaining that will be done to elicit independent brexit UK trade deals from countries that rely on or encourage migration.

Over the past 5 years alone, some net 1.346m people have got  into the UK, with an existing 1m unknown illegal’s. In 2017 of the 244,000 individuals some 205k is attributed to non EU aliens (1) an overspill situation replicated in previous years. During that time No new matching accommodating infrastructures have been built, No comparable house numbers, schools or hospitals or social provisions; at a time of forced austerity on the UK economy. So how and where have the numbers been accommodated? There is also an estimate that over the past 10 years a total of some 5m immigrants have been drawn into the UK which has compounded the infrastructure tensions to date.

The intent to disregard all the above has suited three sectors of the economy; productive, service and finance, ably assisted by governments involvement actively colluding with the desire to make labour pliable, flexible and cheap thereby looking to have greater employer control in investment decisions against “restrictive practices”. For the UK to be a open to any investment, one party system has cause to be thankful for it, even though the billons of funding that have flowed into London are of dubious sources with the whiff of corruption loot being overcome by the stronger weight of ‘conditioner’ money laundered around, has not embarrassed the filtering of some of it into their own (or personal) coffers. This has bloated the price of the property market and with the lack of substantial volume of new build, has driven up the overall price of property and land. So, with the lack of compatible wage increases to maintain any semblance of affordability, higher cost moves property acquisition for new potential owners off or out of the market. Those already in the properly asset market have seen values raise markedly with the additional increase in a range of speculators surging into 2nd homes, multi buy-ins, vacant investment buys and a continuance of house builders practices to rig the market demand in their own favour, exacerbating the ongoing shortage in housing stock.   

Although mortgage providers have been forces to be more prudent in how and to whom they lend as a result of the Credit Crises, with the injection of £600bn QE into the finance sector they are desperate to move cash resource out to loans, with signs that they are manipulating for irresponsible lending again but the difficulty now is that with the drag of lowered real wages, newer entrances into property find it tricky to acquire a deposit or support a loan, a situation which is particular hard for a young generation. One additional complication with this is that with students who have accumulated an educational loan of 27K +, they are at an immediate disadvantage affecting the ability they, like others without an adequate deposit, are being unattractive to a lender, for this deficiency will be assessed as part of their outgoings from any income they may have to ascertain the lenders risk. Without a backstop guarantor or the bank of ‘mum & dad’ there is little chance of getting on the housing ‘ladder’ and it is shown up in the rapid rise in and cost of renting accommodation, a symptom of low unaffordable social housing provision.

Given the disconnecting decision to become a sovereign country freed from the yoke of the EU and the reality of just what that means in the face of the global changes in trade, finance, economies, environment and the impact with some nations instability pressurising undesirable migration; sovereignty without the power or resources to enact the real influence of sovereignty, is useless. Furthermore as the ‘will’ of the people after having done its job, has all the indications of being an uncertain, fraught and fiscally depleting decades to come, there will be no replay for a future generation from being ‘sovereign’, to enlist “the will of the people” again.

This entire dilemma on one issue is a disgraceful state of affairs and it is an endemic deliberate disregard of the debilitated state of the nation that is replicated across a range of issues. That there are a assortment of issue that do impinge on one another and have become entrenched due to political immorality, relaxed in their own cosseted decadence, ought not to be tolerate, but it is; as there is no wringing of hands in frustration against the call for “something must be done”.

The fact is there is no will to do anything dramatic by the Cons to address the creeping impoverishment for to do so it will cause discomfort to many lobbyist, asset holders, nimby’s and aspiring party supporting sycophants.

The problems with issues like the sample above are not irresolvable, there may raise irascible consequences in the attempt to do so but if there was a will, how much could be done?

Something must be done and it needs will to do so; for the moment;-

    

There is no will to really gain meaningful control of immigration.

There is no will to attack the housing crisis due to the long held anathema against social housing.

There is no will to reinforce UK social culture above that migrants introduced.

Will has no money now and will is unlikely to be allowed a decision on future deviant divergences.

© Renot

123181528

(1) Migrationwatch.org