The Tories have consistently blocked further investigation into the death of Litvinjenko, assassinated for his pro-democracy and -press freedoms.
But why the fuss over this criminal, in it for the cash and thrills?
The Russians have been bumping of their traitorous spies for decades, stories buried, little notice taken.
The Tories have received £800k recently from high level Russians whilst investigations into the dubious money laundering activities have been quashed.
So why THIS ONE. or Why now?

The Tories are in desperate need of an enemy to secure their power.
The Tories are continuing to pursue evil and unpopular policies. This week ending free school meals for thousands of hungry English children whilst increasing the provision for those in N. Ireland, whose DUP they utterly rely on for their Parliamentary Majority. The media are all but silent on this issue.

Why is this even Newsworthy???

17 people in my own city died last year as a direct result of homelessness. The media are silent. Yet one criminal gets popped by his own government and all hell breaks loose?

This is not a conspiracy. It reminds me of the dodgy dossier in the lead up to the Iraq war.

[Delete] @Baden

Nothing happens accidentally.
I would go so far as to suggest that the poison was administered by the UK, Israel, or any other player wishing to discredit Moscow.
But that aside, why THIS attack NOW is splashed all over the media whilst other similar instances have been suppressed. seems obvious enough

I would go so far as to suggest that the poison was administered by the UK, Israel, or any other player wishing to discredit Moscow. — charleton

Probably the same organisation that put the explosives in the Twin Towers and orchestrated the JFK killing. They're all around us, in fact there's a good chance this forum, and your computer, and even your thoughts, are being controlled by them - unbeknownst to you, of course.

What about motive? — René Descartes

The chemical agent in question is only able to be obtained by those connected to Russia. It leaves an unmistakable fingerprint. The question is, why use something that is clearly going to implicate Russia? A pistol with a silencer would have done the job without leaving a fingerprint. So the likely answer is, to send a message, both the Russian emigres, and to Western governments, that Putin can do this kind of thing and won't be stopped by your complaints or sanctions.

robably the same organisation that put the explosives in the Twin Towers and orchestrated the JFK killing. — Wayfarer

No. These are vastly different cases.

The question is, why use something that is clearly going to implicate Russia? — Wayfarer

This is a valid question.

We also know that Novichok was created in the USSR between the 1970-90s. It's inventors name is Vil Mirzayanov who currently lives in the US. So we know that the Russians had access to this nerve agent. But we also know that Britain.... — René Descartes

Justeight miles away from the incident at Porton Down (defence facility) are quantities of ALL know chemical weapons where they are in continual research, ostensible for the fabrication of antidotes.

[Delete] @Baden

Probably the same organisation that put the explosives in the Twin Towers — Wayfarer

Oh, common office fires brought all three buildings down on the same day, is that so hard to believe?

Two jet airplanes.

[Delete] @Baden

René and Charlatan think they are freely engaging in a discussion of conspiracies. Obviously they don't know about the nano-sized implants in their brains, controlled by the CIA through satellite networks, like all those GPS devices which monitor EXACTLY where you are at all times...

They can't help but lip-sync to whatever music their masters in Langley HQ want them to dance to.

Lip-syncers all. Sad.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

Indeed. But I must resist the urge to set such ideas straight. There’s too many of them, and life’s too short.,,,

Actually, I don't give a rat's ass about Sergei Scribal, his demise, and the motive or method employed to kill/execute/silence him and his daughter by whoever did it. That an exotic substance was used, instead of a gun, blunt object, blade, or bare hands doesn't make that much difference.

The thing is, what could you possibly bring forward that would actually clarify the identity of the agency which performed the killing and their motive? Conspiracy theories about 911 present the same problem: what could a bunch of even quite a bit above average Joes sitting in front of their computers possibly learn that would unravel the secret?

I will grant you that Ms. May could use something dramatic other than her own suicide to get her out of the Brexit negotiation mess. So... there is that.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

What is Langley HQ anyway. — René Descartes

It's the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia.

[Delete] @Baden

You are just as bad as those who believe in conspiracies, ie. you immediatly assume that you are right and say everyone else is wrong — René Descartes

My response was triggered by the suggestion that actually it was the UK behind it, which I think is a disgusting insinuation. Then there was just a hint of 9/11 coanspiracy nonsense. That was it. Nothing about you in particular.

[Delete] @Baden

Nothing, what makes you think it is Russia. — René Descartes

Did I say I thought the Russians did it? I thought I said I didn't care who did it.

One of the features of conspiracy theories is to always discount the official explanation (like, 2 planes flying to the WTC towers) and reach instead for an obscure explanation that blames the source of the official explanation (the US Government did it with explosives).

[Delete] @Baden

I am not taking sides on this issue although I do not trust either side, they could both have done it. I want to leave this open to discussion. — René Descartes

Here’s where I see the problem with your OP, which I really ought not to have responded to. I think there is simply no question that a Russian agent was responsible. There are of course many facts that are unknown and may never come out, but when the UK government’s scientific agencies say that they have identified the substance and that it is something unique to Russian chemical weapons manufacture, then I don’t believe there is ‘another side’ to the story. I will take the UK government’s word for it. End of argument.

Then there was just a hint of 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. — Wayfarer

I'm aware that the promoters of this forum frown upon it; but, the manner in which people respond to "beliefs that they do not share" or otherwise pejoratively called "conspiracy theories" leaves much to be desired. I'm not saying that all conspiracy theories merit consideration and analysis or even suspension of disbelief; but, in some cases where professionals, educated in the arts of how buildings are built with 20-30+ years of experience and with no ulterior motive to fulfill, I mean actual architects and engineers claiming that the story isn't so clear cut as the official narrative would explain, then that merits some further consideration than calling the whole thing a "conspiracy theory" and dismissing it based on that label as crackpottery or nuttiness.

It’s nonsense, Posty. It isn’t a matter of ‘cherished beliefs’ or ‘alternative ways of seeing things’ - it’s just nonsense. I was very disappointed that an academic theologican (of all occupations) by the name of David Ray Griffin climbed on board the 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon.

There was an exhaustive documentary published in the mid-2000’s which completely debunked the whole twin towers conspiracy theory for once and for all. As far as I’m concerned, it’s in the same category as denying that there were moon landings, it’s misinformation. I think the reason it got so much traction is because there are indeed sinister state players, like the Russians and the Iranians, who have a strong interest in making people believe that the US and Israel was behind all of it. And look how effective that’s been - those ideas are out there now. It’s like, more than half the population of the US don’t believe in biological evolution. There’s a lot of disinformation floating around, especially on the internet.

I do care about the nature of conspiracy theories -- not so much the content of the theories. The main problem with the content of the theories is that the theorists generally can't get their hands on solid evidence--which of course, helps the theorists since no evidence also means no limitations on speculation.

Here's an example of conspiracy with evidence: Several years before it was revealed just how much spying on American citizens by their own government was going on, there was a story in the New Yorker (if I remember correctly) written by a telephone switching equipment specialist. He was in the San Francisco telephone switching building where, among other things, a large number of long-distance and internet cables for west coast traffic were located. One of the floors had been locked and declared off-limits. This struck the specialist is passing odd. He had never seen a block of switching equipment put off limits. He managed to find a fellow union member who did have access to the locked floor, and was able to observe what was going on there.

What he found was a massive intercept on all of the west-coast cables--put there at the behest of somebody other than the telephone company. Later he learned that similar things were happening in other main switching centers. What he assumed was that somebody was vacuuming up the content of traffic. Who and why, he didn't know. But he had a theory.

He did think it was a conspiracy of some sort, but he had seen evidence of something secretive and very fishy going on. As I said, a few years later his hunch was validated by Edward Snowden.

Most conspiracies aren't supported by unusual observation prior to the event in question. For instance, no one observed crews working in the WTC buildings, opening up walls and attaching stuff to critical structures, and running wires from those "somethings" to somewhere else. Installing enough explosives to collapse three WTC buildings in the way we all observed it happening, wouldn't be something people wouldn't notice. It would be fairly complicated.

Krishnamurti said something like "it's not the unknown that that we are scared of , it's the end of the known". Conspiracy theories give a good jerk to the rug beneath our feet.

I'm not going to risk embarking on a public discussion due to not wanting to offend the admins; but I would be quite interested in your analysis of how building 7 fell in a PM conversation if you will. With your permission I will proceed to just asking how you think that building fell?