Years ago I got some fake CK1 aftershave from Blackpool market,sprayed it once and it gave me a absolutely banging headache and blurred vision…only just clicked in that I was a assassination target too 
Winseer said …
‘‘CCTV footage of these suspects coming through customs
Questions being asked as to why their baggage was not checked ?’’
If it really came from Russia in the diplomatic bag and not Porton Down is it actually checked ■■ Should have thought not …
Carryfast:
How is that not an admission that he rightly views Crimea as Russian territory just as we view Northern Ireland as Brit ?.IE he hasn’t said anywhere that Crimea isn’t a part of Russia or that Russia isn’t there in whatever form.While it’s bleedin clear enough that he’s actually saying in diplomatic speak yes we are there and being rightfully ours we’ve taken it back but we aren’t looking for a fight over it.But if you really want one you’ll get one.Feel free to turn down his obvious offer of a peaceful settlement in that regard.
So do you mean, so long as he give a bit of Orwellian doublespeak: “no we`re not there, “wink” you know we are really” We should ignore him annexing all and every bit of land he likes?
Appeasement sound familiar to you?
Carryfast:
Which leaves the question on what grounds do you regard Crimea as not being part of Russia.Oh wait if the EU says it’s part of the EU then it is and you’re prepared to go to war allied with your Kraut mates to make it so.
Maybe the “Budapest Memorandum on Securty Measures” signed by the UK, USA, and Russian federation in 1994 is relevant here?
HINT… it is.
Franglais:
Carryfast:
How is that not an admission that he rightly views Crimea as Russian territory just as we view Northern Ireland as Brit ?.IE he hasn’t said anywhere that Crimea isn’t a part of Russia or that Russia isn’t there in whatever form.While it’s bleedin clear enough that he’s actually saying in diplomatic speak yes we are there and being rightfully ours we’ve taken it back but we aren’t looking for a fight over it.But if you really want one you’ll get one.Feel free to turn down his obvious offer of a peaceful settlement in that regard.So do you mean, so long as he give a bit of Orwellian doublespeak: “no we`re not there, “wink” you know we are really” We should ignore him annexing all and every bit of land he likes?
Appeasement sound familiar to you?Carryfast:
Which leaves the question on what grounds do you regard Crimea as not being part of Russia.Oh wait if the EU says it’s part of the EU then it is and you’re prepared to go to war allied with your Kraut mates to make it so.Maybe the “Budapest Memorandum on Securty Measures” signed by the UK, USA, and Russian federation in 1994 is relevant here?
HINT… it is.
No what he’s clearly saying is that he only wanted to use minimum force if any to take back what’s rightfully a part of Russia since Catherine the Great’s forces kicked the Ottoman Muslims out of the place in 1783 with a loyalist Russian majority there to date to prove it.IE he clearly had/has no intention of starting a war over it.Just like we didn’t kick off WW3 to maintain Brit rule in Northern Ireland although ironically that involved more force in the form the Paras than Russia used or needed to take back Crimea.Let alone the small incident with Argentina over our interests in the ‘Falklands’.
As for him ‘annexing’ any other bit of land he likes if that was the case don’t you think that he’d already have gone on the offensive over the bad faith shown by the EU and NATO in the case of moving its military machine into the old Soviet buffer states.As opposed to the restraint that he’s shown to date to such provocation.Although make no mistake if you keep prodding the Bear sooner or later you’ll get a response and it won’t be like the type of half hearted resource starved approach of the Argies in the Falklands or a few Irish nutters in Northern Ireland.
On that note no we don’t want to die for more Eastward EU expansionist adventurism now just as we didn’t when the defeated German Werhmacht thought that we were going to re arm them and go for Russia in 1945.That would have ended well. 
Carryfast:
Franglais:
Carryfast:
How is that not an admission that he rightly views Crimea as Russian territory just as we view Northern Ireland as Brit ?.IE he hasn’t said anywhere that Crimea isn’t a part of Russia or that Russia isn’t there in whatever form.While it’s bleedin clear enough that he’s actually saying in diplomatic speak yes we are there and being rightfully ours we’ve taken it back but we aren’t looking for a fight over it.But if you really want one you’ll get one.Feel free to turn down his obvious offer of a peaceful settlement in that regard.So do you mean, so long as he give a bit of Orwellian doublespeak: “no we`re not there, “wink” you know we are really” We should ignore him annexing all and every bit of land he likes?
Appeasement sound familiar to you?Carryfast:
Which leaves the question on what grounds do you regard Crimea as not being part of Russia.Oh wait if the EU says it’s part of the EU then it is and you’re prepared to go to war allied with your Kraut mates to make it so.Maybe the “Budapest Memorandum on Securty Measures” signed by the UK, USA, and Russian federation in 1994 is relevant here?
HINT… it is.
No what he’s clearly saying is that he only wanted to use minimum force if any to take back what’s rightfully a part of Russia since Catherine the Great’s forces kicked the Ottoman Muslims out of the place in 1783 with a loyalist Russian majority there to date to prove it.IE he clearly had/has no intention of starting a war over it.Just like we didn’t kick off WW3 to maintain Brit rule in Northern Ireland although ironically that involved more force in the form the Paras than Russia used or needed to take back Crimea.Let alone the small incident with Argentina over our interests in the ‘Falklands’.
As for him ‘annexing’ any other bit of land he likes if that was the case don’t you think that he’d already have gone on the offensive over the bad faith shown by the EU and NATO in the case of moving its military machine into the old Soviet buffer states.As opposed to the restraint that he’s shown to date to such provocation.Although make no mistake if you keep prodding the Bear sooner or later you’ll get a response and it won’t be like the type of half hearted resource starved approach of the Argies in the Falklands or a few Irish nutters in Northern Ireland.
On that note no we don’t want to die for more Eastward EU expansionist adventurism now just as we didn’t when the defeated German Werhmacht thought that we were going to re arm them and go for Russia in 1945.That would have ended well.
Strange don’t you think how Patton was denied his final push at the Hun by Eisenhower and his controllers (Baruch) and then fatally accidented in a jeep crash shortly thereafter?..bit of a rhetorical one i guess
raymundo:
Winseer said …
‘‘CCTV footage of these suspects coming through customs
Questions being asked as to why their baggage was not checked ?’’If it really came from Russia in the diplomatic bag and not Porton Down is it actually checked ■■ Should have thought not …
Even if it was a top Russian agent using Diplomatic Bag to get it through customs - the geezer would have had to physically walk through customs, presumably not teleporting into the UK, or swimming across the channel in scuba kit, getting his doggychoc all wet…
The point is, I can’t see the UK government in it’s current “gunning for Russia” stance - allowing any suspicious Russian dudes “wipe the tapes” every time one of them walks through customs - diplomatic bag or supermarket bag!
There would be stacks of everyday evidence that would stand up in court - IF any of the accusations were in the slightest bit true.
manalishi:
Strange don’t you think how Patton was denied his final push at the Hun by Eisenhower and his controllers (Baruch) and then fatally accidented in a jeep crash shortly thereafter?..bit of a rhetorical one i guess
Firstly the carve up of Europe had already been decided at Yalta long before Patton’s car accident took place so what would have been the point of getting rid of him over something that was already well known.While surely Patton’s accusations that Eisenhower deliberately allowed the German forces to escape at Falaise could only have hindered the Russian advance not helped it.While if the carnage that was caused to the German forces there by Allied air power was supposed to be Eisenhower’s idea of ‘allowing them to escape’ then who needed Patton to sort them out.
While have to say I agree with Eisenhower that Patton was a nutter if he thought that he could take the absloutely knackered Allied forces into a new WW3 against the red Army in 1945.My father was involved in what almost became a full on fight with Tito’s Russian red army allies over Istria in 1945.In which he’d never forgot one of the old hands,who’d shown my father the ropes as a new 18 year old conscript and who’d survived the war through the North African campaign through Italy and then ending it together with my Dad in Operation Grapeshot and had lived to celebrate VE day in Italy only to be blown up on one of their regular tank and equipment transport runs between Pola,Trieste and Villach shortly after by an anti tank mine laid by the Yugoslav forces who wanted the Italians and their Brit etc allies out of Istria.He was also involved in transporting German POW’s from Pola and that’s where he first heard the Germans shouting about intending to join us fighting the Yugos and the Russians.He told them to shut their stupid mouths or he’d shoot the zb’s himself.Not to mention the irony of other Brit troops being shipped from Italy to fight against Jewish ‘terrorists’ fighting for their homeland in Palestine at the time added to that.
On that note we can probably thank people like Eisenhower.Who’ve all done a good job,in avoiding what can only be a catastrophic war with Russia with no winners.Unless we absolutely have to and not following the nutter Patton’s and his German allies’ stupid ideas which obviously still exist today in the form of the EU’s designs on Ukraine.
Winseer:
The point is, I can’t see the UK government in it’s current “gunning for Russia” stance - allowing any suspicious Russian dudes “wipe the tapes” every time one of them walks through customs - diplomatic bag or supermarket bag!There would be stacks of everyday evidence that would stand up in court - IF any of the accusations were in the slightest bit true.
At the outside worse it could only be a warning shot across our bows by Putin to stop pushing Russia.In which case what would be the point of that as opposed to just referring to the nuclear threat that he then answered May’s accusations with anyway.In which case good luck with answering that with more of the same EU and NATO sabre rattling and posturing on Russia’s borders.Let alone continuing with the same bs that Crimea supposedly doesn’t belong to Russia which would obviously be a case of re writing history.
Carryfast:
Franglais:
Carryfast:
How is that not an admission that he rightly views Crimea as Russian territory just as we view Northern Ireland as Brit ?.IE he hasn’t said anywhere that Crimea isn’t a part of Russia or that Russia isn’t there in whatever form.While it’s bleedin clear enough that he’s actually saying in diplomatic speak yes we are there and being rightfully ours we’ve taken it back but we aren’t looking for a fight over it.But if you really want one you’ll get one.Feel free to turn down his obvious offer of a peaceful settlement in that regard.So do you mean, so long as he give a bit of Orwellian doublespeak: “no we`re not there, “wink” you know we are really” We should ignore him annexing all and every bit of land he likes?
Appeasement sound familiar to you?Carryfast:
Which leaves the question on what grounds do you regard Crimea as not being part of Russia.Oh wait if the EU says it’s part of the EU then it is and you’re prepared to go to war allied with your Kraut mates to make it so.Maybe the “Budapest Memorandum on Securty Measures” signed by the UK, USA, and Russian federation in 1994 is relevant here?
HINT… it is.
No what he’s clearly saying is that he only wanted to use minimum force if any to take back what’s rightfully a part of Russia since Catherine the Great’s forces kicked the Ottoman Muslims out of the place in 1783 with a loyalist Russian majority there to date to prove it.IE he clearly had/has no intention of starting a war over it.Just like we didn’t kick off WW3 to maintain Brit rule in Northern Ireland although ironically that involved more force in the form the Paras than Russia used or needed to take back Crimea.Let alone the small incident with Argentina over our interests in the ‘Falklands’.
As for him ‘annexing’ any other bit of land he likes if that was the case don’t you think that he’d already have gone on the offensive over the bad faith shown by the EU and NATO in the case of moving its military machine into the old Soviet buffer states.As opposed to the restraint that he’s shown to date to such provocation.Although make no mistake if you keep prodding the Bear sooner or later you’ll get a response and it won’t be like the type of half hearted resource starved approach of the Argies in the Falklands or a few Irish nutters in Northern Ireland.
On that note no we don’t want to die for more Eastward EU expansionist adventurism now just as we didn’t when the defeated German Werhmacht thought that we were going to re arm them and go for Russia in 1945.That would have ended well.
So the situation under Catherine centuries ago is more important than the 1994 treaty? Bizarre. Maybe we should retake control of Ireland and India??
And in the 70’s there were 21,000 troops in Ulster. Russia used 30,000 troops in Crimea invasion, reinforced with 60,000 including two division and one reg of airborne plus use of 30 navy vessels. They killed about 2,400…
Nothing ironic about that at all.
If you say that Russia has worries about NATO getting closer? I’d agree. Annexing Crimea isn’t any help ay all though, us it?
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Franglais:
So the situation under Catherine centuries ago is more important than the 1994 treaty? Bizarre. Maybe we should retake control of Ireland and India??
And in the 70’s there were 21,000 troops in Ulster. Russia used 30,000 troops in Crimea invasion, reinforced with 60,000 including two division and one reg of airborne plus use of 30 navy vessels. They killed about 2,400…
Nothing ironic about that at all.If you say that Russia has worries about NATO getting closer? I’d agree. Annexing Crimea isn’t any help ay all though, us it?
More biased selective bs.If the situation as it stood centuries ago,in this case Russia’s established ownership of Crimea,doesn’t matter then tell us under what basis did we go to war over the Falklands and send in the 21,000 troops including the paras with ‘the troubles’ resulting in 3,500 casualties.That doesn’t include those like my relative who were killed during and in the immediate aftermath of the Irish war of independence or the Irish civil war that resulted from the partition treaty.Rather than reaching a nice modern peaceful agreement which handed them over to Argentina and Eire respectively.While on that basis Putin certainly has more right to Crimea than Ukraine and your zb EU mates do.
On that note I don’t remember Putin making any agreements with anyone in 1994 handing over Crimea to Ukraine let alone the stinking EU.While going along with your bs wouldn’t be the first time that this country has got itself embroiled on the wrong side of a needless catastrophic war ( WW1 ) in support of our European muppet neighbours.In that case ironically on the side of Russia and France against Germany.
Still have not heard an actual Motive for Russia to even be bothered with all this crap.
Kiev wants East Ukraine back. They want it back undemocratically. They’ve appealed to the EU (experts in Lying, Being Undemocratic, Spending other people’s money, pushing other nation’s soldiers to fight their battles, and not paying their own money into the system that sets it all up)
The EU want British forces to be part of the coalition to wrest East Ukraine (democratically ceding itself to Russia, where it started…) away from Russia.
The EU want British taxpayers to pay for any such hostilities.
The EU don’t want to continue the “War on Terror” since they’ve imported such a large number of Muslims, that they’d rather go the the “Muslim Vote” in elections instead, and appease them all the way from now on.
The EU are in a spot of bother, because the majority, not just here, but on the Mainland - think they are scumbags.
No amount of lie-telling will make much difference in that regard.
Winseer:
Still have not heard an actual Motive for Russia to even be bothered with all this crap.Kiev wants East Ukraine back. They want it back undemocratically. They’ve appealed to the EU (experts in Lying, Being Undemocratic, Spending other people’s money, pushing other nation’s soldiers to fight their battles, and not paying their own money into the system that sets it all up)
The EU want British forces to be part of the coalition to wrest East Ukraine (democratically ceding itself to Russia, where it started…) away from Russia.
The EU want British taxpayers to pay for any such hostilities.
The EU don’t want to continue the “War on Terror” since they’ve imported such a large number of Muslims, that they’d rather go the the “Muslim Vote” in elections instead, and appease them all the way from now on.The EU are in a spot of bother, because the majority, not just here, but on the Mainland - think they are scumbags.
No amount of lie-telling will make much difference in that regard.
The only motive could be a warning shot across May’s bows.But why a low grade chem attack followed by a nuclear threat when just the latter would do.
As for the rest + 1.
what a load of ■■■■■■■■ that Charlie Fellow expects us to believe that he found a bottle of perfume then sprayed it on himself and his wife. how many of you would pick up a bottle of something maybe driver tizer and then spray it on yourself, I don’t believe a word he says surely you cannot be that stupid to spray an unknown substance on yourself .watched him on the news he does not seem to be that thick there’s more to this than what they’re letting on and he was told to say that.
Didn’t someone say “It smelt of Ammonia”… FFS so does that nice “limeade” one sees in plastic bottles on hard shoulders up and down the country!
Gonna spray or drink that? I don’t think I’d have the bottle to even chance a sniff of “old git’s ■■■■” personally, but then again someone that hangs around in the gents, might disagree with me on that one.
This guy is probably being given a serious briefing on what to say, what to avoid talking about, and any other believable bulls hit that the government might be able to palm off on the public using this guy as a mouthpiece…
Then he gave this “bottle” to his now deceased bird - as a “Present”.
Dustbin diving is one thing - but that’s a bit of a stretch to start wrapping the contents up as prezzies?