looks like a Russian

[breadnbutter]

exactly so lets ban the US president visiting the UK , after all Europe does not need the USA to back it up

well thank goodness the USA is in NATO, otherwise were are like lions whith no teeth.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

i’m confused. You’re saying her current course of action is right a week after the attack but also doing nothing for 4 years was also right for her predecessors?

You’re also saying that she did nothing despite taking an active roll in insuring the findings were published from the last time.

It seems whatever she does or doesn’t do is going to be wrong. Is that your position summarised?

You are putting words down that I never said.
I agree that the previous incumbents of the Home Secretary appeared to do little. But in reality there were actions being taken after the due legal process failed to produce the suspect for trial. However, it appears it was Jaqui Smith, Alan Johnson and TM that argued for no inquiry and no inquest to be allowed in order to preserve state secrets. It took 5 years after TM becoming Home Secretary before the Inquest opened, 8 years after Litvenenko's murder his widow won her battle for an inquest or an inquiry..
But let us look at the timeline. I will use the BBC timeline indicator, with my comments added in blue italics:
The Litvinenko case

• 23 Nov 2006 - Litvinenko dies three weeks after having tea with former agents Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun in London
• 24 Nov 2006 - His death is attributed to polonium-210
• 22 May 2007 - Britain's director of public prosecutions decides Mr Lugovoi should be charged with the murder of Mr Litvinenko The perpetrator was identified but there was no evidence of collusion by Russian state.
• 31 May 2007 - Mr Lugovoi denies any involvement in his death but says Mr Litvinenko was a British spy
• 5 Jul 2007 - Russia officially refuses to extradite Mr Lugovoi, saying its constitution does not allow it. Some collusion by Russian state becoming suspected, and UK legislative procedures begun.
• In July 2007, British-Russian tensions turned into an ugly spat with four Russian and four British diplomats expelled from their respective embassies.
  The UK broke off links with the Russian security services - although there was limited contact during the Sochi Winter Olympics.
• 2008 Litvinenko's widow asks for inquest.
• May 2010 TM appointed as Home Secretary.
• After a hard-fought legal battle by Mrs Litvinenko, a public inquiry took place. After Litvinenko's death, his widow, Marina, pursued a vigorous campaign on behalf of her husband through the Litvinenko Justice Foundation. In October 2011, she won the right for an inquest into her husband's death to be conducted by a coroner in London
  The British government had originally rejected the idea of an inquiry, suggested by the coroner in charge of the case, Sir Robert Owen.
  He had argued this was the only way of considering secret material that the government had demanded be kept out of the inquest. The material can be considered in closed session during an inquiry but not during an inquest - this includes material pointing to a possible role of the Russian state in the killing.
  The inquiry, set up by the government, opened at the Royal Courts of Justice in London in January 2015, led by Sir Robert.
• May-June 2013 - Inquest into Mr Litvinenko's death delayed as coroner decides a public inquiry would be preferable, as it would be able to hear some evidence in secret
• July 2013 - Ministers rule out public inquiry
• Jan 2014 - Marina Litvinenko in High Court fight to force a public inquiry
• 11 Feb 2014 - High Court says the Home Office had been wrong to rule out an inquiry before the outcome of an inquest
• July 2014 - Public inquiry announced by Home Office
• January 2015 - Public inquiry begins

It was during that Inquiry that Russian state collusion was identified. TM did nothing, and the government did nothing!

 

[Notch7]

You are putting words down that I never said

What you implied is that TM was PM at time of Litvinenko case No explanation or expansion was included so no other conclusion could be reached

You are now trying to reach another conclusion to prove your point was not as you stated.

Oh wait a minute, does that mean Wannabe is twisting and wriggling again?......Yup, certainly does

How are those CJD cases working for ya?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

What you implied is that TM was PM at time of Litvinenko case

Dream away, troll, gently down the stream.

You are in such a tizzy you forget where you are coming from.
Thus you have no idea where you are going or how to get there.
In essence, you are lost.

 

[Notch7]

Dream away, troll, gently down the stream.

You are in such a tizzy you forget where you are coming from.
Thus you have no idea where you are going or how to get there.
In essence, you are lost.

your inability to tell the truth........It must be pathological, no other explanation.

 

[motorbiking]

The French actually mounted an air raid on Gibralter against the British in WW2 , when they sent there bombers to bomb the british naval base.

To be fair we did sink their navy at Dunkirk rather than have it fall in to German hands.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

What you implied is that TM was PM at time of Litvinenko

By all means, provide this evidence.
I know you cannot, you know you cannot, so you resort to your usually trolling behaviour.

Hint: It was a labour government in 2006.

 

[transam]

true, that would of been better for both, but they said they will scuttle the ships before the germans got hold of them, we did not trust that. so over one thousand French sailers lost there lives.
and there was another port,the french had 70 or so ships, they scuttled them before the germans got there.

yes lets trust the French

when we tried to take over french naval vessels in the UK 3 (I think) british sailors were killed !!!!!

The French fleet in algeria were given fair warning several times.

The US who were reluctant to assist us prior to the French fleet caper , suddenly changed there mind after we destroyed there fleet.


Trust the French no different today , you cannot

 

[transam]

By all means, provide this evidence.
I know you cannot, you know you cannot, so you resort to your usually trolling behaviour.

Hint: It was a labour government in 2006.

The evidence is there for all to see way r bee if it is not then u have been on one of your numerous editing sprees

Incidentally I have u on ignaw so I cannot answer your post

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

The evidence is there for all to see way r bee

But you, nor notch, can find it.
So you continue to make baseless allegations.

It is what you do.
It is what you are.

 

[transam]

But you, nor notch, can find it.
So you continue to make baseless allegations.

It is what you do.
It is what you are.

of course i can find it what are u retarded or summit ? but the point is way R bee , we cannot find some of it as you are constantly editing your posts thats the trouble with u way r bee u think I am stupid

and in any event I am not talking to you as u are on ignaw so

and u have the same wat sit address as him again . I counted the pixels

yes way r bee transam has contacts in high places do not ask for whom the bell tolls way r bee it tolls for th**

 

[Notch7]

y all means, provide this evidence

You seem confused
Post 33

Did you not know.....the PM then was not TM

Ps see post 33

Tell ya wot, if its not too nuanced for you, see post 33.

Hint: post 33

Do you need a link?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

What you implied is that TM was PM at time of Litvinenko case

Then the usual abusive drivel

You said:
And who was the home secretary then: PM (IE TM).

see your post no 33 at 6.35pm 13/3

Post number 33 reproduced for you:

And who was the Home Secretary then?

In case you can still not get your head around it, it is impossible for the incumbent PM to also be the incumbent Home Secretary at the same time.
Numbskull!
If TM was the Home Secretary, she could not possibly have been also the PM at the same time.

Take my previous advice and go and lie down in a dark room until you have recovered your composure.

And just in case you try to squirm some more:

I was referring to the inquiry date, not the date of the criminal act.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

of course i can find it

Then go find it, instead of claiming that you can.

yes way r bee transam has contacts in high places do not ask for whom the bell tolls way r bee it tolls for th**

Bats in the belfry, probably.

 

[Notch7]

In case you can still not get your head around it, it is impossible for the incumbent PM to also be the incumbent Home Secretary at the same time.
Numbskull!

You shouldnt be flouting the rules of the forum and insulting people its very upsetting

I was referring to the inquiry date, not the date of the criminal act.
Well point out where you said that in post 33 then
You seem to think you can alter the argument later on to suit yourself.

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/looks-like-a-russian.498986/page-5#ixzz59u3lkFbM

it is impossible for the incumbent PM to also be the incumbent Home Secretary at the same time

You just part quoted Transoms post: 'the pm' - implies current PM not past. A previous PM would not be 'the PM'.

When somebody says to you 'the PM' -do you need to ask which PM?