Brexit, for once some facts.

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
42,893
18,841
One of principles of PI is to determine the facts in attempts to prevent occurance again.
Zlatan, in answer to all your new responses:

The properties of polonium 210 are well known public knowledge and freely available. No radioactive material is as familiar since it was one of the first two discovered, by the Curies of course in 1898.

It cannot leave the trail that was claimed to blame the Russians, that is undeniable scientific fact. But that was the 12 year old evidence the public inquiry used to assign blame.

The other evidence available to it to help with the conclusions was that polonium 210 was very difficult to obtain. That is total rubbish. I bought my isotopes from the USA where there are commercial suppliers.

So how could anyone get these? Very simply. In the USA it is not illegal supply them but getting a licence is a different matter. In the UK we had the reverse system, licence readily available but isotopes strictly controlled.

Just put the two together as I did, UK home office licence and buy from the USA, that's if you want to be legal. But that incurs Special Branch security checks and annual visits and annual fire brigade visits.

For those who want to stay under cover, just buy the isotopes since the suppliers don't check for any licencing and they come in the post since polonium 210 is completely safe for human external contact. It is only deadly internally once easily prepared.

Now you can be foolish and believe the conclusion of a public inquiry based solely on the false information I've exposed above, or you can at last accept the facts.

The Russians might possibly have killed Litvinenko, but the evidence produced to say that conclusively was entirely false in every tiny detail. That is all the public inquiry had which they accepted in good faith. Wrapping it in thousands of words and numerous pages does not change the facts. As I've shown, anyone could have killed him, including me, since I had the wherewithal and knowledge and was in London at the time. That's also true of anyone in London's newsprint at the time.
.
 

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
15,913
22,382
75
Zlatan, in answer to all your new responses:

The properties of polonium 210 are well known public knowledge and freely available. No radioactive material is as familiar since it was one of the first two discovered, by the Curies of course in 1898.

It cannot leave the trail that was claimed to blame the Russians, that is undeniable scientific fact. But that was the 12 year old evidence the public inquiry used to assign blame.

The other evidence available to it to help with the conclusions was that polonium 210 was very difficult to obtain. That is total rubbish. I bought my isotopes from the USA where there are commercial suppliers.

So how could anyone get these? Very simply. In the USA it is not illegal supply them but getting a licence is a different matter. In the UK we had the reverse system, licence readily available but isotopes strictly controlled.

Just put the two together as I did, UK home office licence and buy from the USA, that's if you want to be legal. But that incurs Special Branch security checks and annual visits and annual fire brigade visits.

For those who want to stay under cover, just buy the isotopes since the suppliers don't check for any licencing and they come in the post since polonium 210 is completely safe for human external contact. It is only deadly internally once easily prepared.

Now you can be foolish and believe the conclusion of a public inquiry based solely on the false information I've exposed above, or you can at last accept the facts.

The Russians might possibly have killed Litvinenko, but the evidence produced to say that conclusively was entirely false in every tiny detail. That is all the public inquiry had which they accepted in good faith. Wrapping it in thousands of words and numerous pages does not change the facts. As I've shown, anyone could have killed him, including me, since I had the wherewithal and knowledge and was in London at the time. That's also true of anyone in London's newsprint at the time.
.
This notion of your's flecc that presenting Zlatan with facts will actually change his mind is doomed.

Once he has made his mind up mere facts are water off a "Ducks Back" and as he stated earlier
"If it looks like a Duck
And Quacks like a Duck

I do like him, somehow he satisfies my masochistic side, there are times when his insults aimed at me are
Witty and Pithy
Really you know, he's a bit of a "Pith artist":cool:

He is even more creative when responding to my postings than the Government is with "The Truth"
 
Last edited:
  • :D
Reactions: oldtom and Zlatan

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
4,439
804
Thanks OG and Flecc..your posts are in good humour even if I disagree with your opinions.
IMHO its you two mixing opinion with fact and not the Owen inquiry.( and not me either)
All you say may well be true Flecc but I somehow doubt Owen and others involved with both the inquiry and investigations of case are less well versed in Polonium etc etc than anyone on here.
Given a choice as to who to believe between Owen and yourself Flecc ( and you OG) I,m afraid I would choose Owen and his associates. I dont really see that as disrespectful to either of you or my having an inability to take on board facts. That is a quality you two are sharing.
IMHO ( after reading inquiry in its entirety) FBS organised / gave orders for the poisoning under Putin's orders and did same in Salisbury.

Exactly which facts is Flecc presenting I,m refusing to believe ? Flecc is offering opinion based on his own experience. I think you should both down load all the report and read it.
And yes anybody could have killed Litvinenko, anybody that is who had access to Polonium and to the tea pot it was put in he used, and then had the knowledge to not drink from the same pot..
( nobody else at the meeting did so) Now correct me if I,m wrong Flecc but I dont think either you or OG were present ??? So no you could not have killed him.
Perhaps suicide to avoid a future meeting with one of you ?
 
Last edited:

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
15,913
22,382
75
Thanks OG and Flecc..your posts are in good humour even if I disagree with your opinions.
IMHO its you two mixing opinion with fact and not the Owen inquiry.( and not me either)
All you say may well be true Flecc but I somehow doubt Owen and others involved with both the inquiry and investigations of case are less well versed in Polonium etc etc than anyone on here.
Given a choice as to who to believe between Owen and yourself Flecc ( and you OG) I,m afraid I would choose Owen and his associates. I dont really see that as disrespectful to either of you or my having an inability to take on board facts. That is a quality you two are sharing.
IMHO ( after reading inquiry in its entirety) FBS organised / gave orders for the poisoning under Putin's orders and did same in Salisbury.

Exactly which facts is Flecc presenting I,m refusing to believe ? Flecc is offering opinion based on his own experience. I think you should both down load all the report and read it.
And yes anybody could have killed Litvinenko, anybody that is who had access to Polonium and to the tea pot it was put in he used, and then had the knowledge to not drink from the same pot..
( nobody else at the meeting did so) Now correct me if I,m wrong Flecc but I dont think either you or OG were present ??? So no you could not have killed him.
Perhaps suicide to avoid a future meeting with one of you ?
Don't you think you have flogged this particular horse to death? this post is just another attempt at self justification of your opinions.

You are of course entitled to them,but since nothing ever seems to dent your absolute conviction you are right, there really isn't anything further i wish to add, as you will only take that as encouragement.

And that last line was pretty shabby even for you.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: oldtom

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
42,893
18,841
IMHO its you two mixing opinion with fact and not the Owen inquiry.( and not me either)
All you say may well be true Flecc but I somehow doubt Owen and others involved with both the inquiry and investigations of case are less well versed in Polonium etc etc than anyone on here.
I haven't mixed opinion in giving you proven scientific fact or in giving you the ready availability of polonium 210.

Patently Owen accepted in good faith the evidence from the time and being a lawyer and not a scientist would have no reason to suspect it.

But it is undeniable that the twelve year old evidence he accepted was comprehensively false, making it equally undeniable that the public inquiry conclusions are invalid.

There is no opinion in that, it is you who is offering opinions based on your beliefs rather than established facts. Therefore I will not respond again to your belief based opinions on this matter, though I'll be happy to give any technical information on it that you may want.

Attached on this link is a PDF copy of the first page of my licence to hold polonium 210 and the confirmation of when I cancelled that registration. Some personal and sensitive information is redacted of course.
.
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
4,439
804
So lets just get this straight. In my absolute ignorance I believe the conclusions reached in a public enquiry yet I am levelled as the one not accepting " facts"

Whereas Flecc and OG claiming conclusions are wrong are the ones accepting " facts"...Rather ironic given that both your arguments are not against my humble opinion but of the investigation...( and its conclusions)

If you two really think that investigation was flawed and reached incorrect conclusions you have a duty to put those arguments forward to Owen .

Flecc , I didn't doubt you are knowledgeable about Polonium, I think your assumption the investigating committe were not is rather flawed. Read the whole report. You are the one jumping to conclusions the findings did not make. They did not assume Polinium was only available via Russia. They did understand the nature of individuals involved and their unreliable nature and background yet they did reach the conclusion FSB was responsible. Are you Russian Flecc or paid by Putin ?
Yes, I agree totally had Daily Mail, Buzzfeed, Canary , CNN or any other media arrived at these conclusions I would be sceptical. It was none of these carrying out the inquiry.
 
Last edited:

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
15,913
22,382
75
So lets just get this straight. In my absolute ignorance I believe the conclusions reached in a public enquiry yet I am levelled as the one not accepting " facts"

Whereas Flecc and OG claiming conclusions are wrong are the ones accepting " facts"...Rather ironic given that both your arguments are not against my humble opinion but of the investigation...( and its conclusions)

If you two really think that investigation was flawed and reached incorrect conclusions you have a duty to put those arguments forward to Owen .

Flecc , I didn't doubt you are knowledgeable about Polonium, I think your assumption the investigating committe were not is rather flawed. Read the whole report. You are the one jumping to conclusions the findings did not make. They did not assume Polinium was only available via Russia. They did understand the nature of individuals involved and their unreliable nature and background yet the did reach the conclusion FSB was responsible. Are you Russian Flecc or paid by Putin ?
Off topic and irrelevant
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
4,439
804
When are you contacting Owen then OG ? Put forward you have read on a forum that his conclusions are wrong and flawed and you believe what you,ve read on a forum rather than on report..
And you called me stupid.!
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
42,893
18,841
They did not assume Polinium was only available via Russia. They did understand the nature of individuals involved and their unreliable nature and background yet the did reach the conclusion FSB was responsible.
So without definite facts that was the inquiries opinion. I repeat, unlike them I'm not giving any opinion, just stating the available facts.

Are you Russian Flecc or paid by Putin ?
Now you are being silly, I'm English and London born and bred.

Putin and his methods are just what Russia needed to sort out their post USSR chaos.

Putin or his methods are absolutely not what the UK needs.

( Unless Brexit results in post USSR style chaos here! :D )
.
 
D

Deleted member 4366

Guest
Have you solved it yet?

What about starting another thread about the Russians causing our bad weather and what you and the government should do about it? That should keep you going for a while.
 
  • :D
Reactions: oldtom

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
4,439
804
Have you solved it yet?

What about starting another thread about the Russians causing our bad weather and what you and the government should do about it? That should keep you going for a while.
We dont need anymore topics...got ample already..
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
4,439
804
So without definite facts that was the inquiries opinion. I repeat, unlike them I'm not giving any opinion, just stating the available facts.



Now you are being silly, I'm English and London born and bred.

Putin and his methods are just what Russia needed to sort out their post USSR chaos.

Putin or his methods are absolutely not what the UK needs.

( Unless Brexit results in post USSR style chaos here! :D )
.
Yes, the Russian comment was tongue in cheek.

The inquiry was far more rigorous and careful than you imply Flecc. Having spent last 3 days reading the damn thing I cant see anything that supports your conclusion. Infact , quite the reverse. Read section 9.16 ( page 239)
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
11,432
8,653
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
All you say may well be true Flecc but I somehow doubt Owen and others involved with both the inquiry and investigations of case are less well versed in Polonium etc etc than anyone on here.
I can confirm that it is common knowledge to physics students that all radioactive materials that emit alpha particles are usually easy to handle.
The alpha particles can't even penetrate our skin, so Po 210 is easy to handle as long as it does not get into your eyes or your food then into your bloodstream.
If a would be assassin puts it in sugar for example then hands the sugar to the waiter to put in the victim's coffee, nobody has to take any particular precaution.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: flecc

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
15,913
22,382
75
When are you contacting Owen then OG ? Put forward you have read on a forum that his conclusions are wrong and flawed and you believe what you,ve read on a forum rather than on report..
And you called me stupid.!
Doing it again? why should I do as you ask? I have made no comment on the report have I?
 

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
15,913
22,382
75
Have you solved it yet?

What about starting another thread about the Russians causing our bad weather and what you and the government should do about it? That should keep you going for a while.
Don't encourage him!
 

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
15,913
22,382
75
Irrelevant that you insist I wont accept facts but you refute the conclusion of a public inquiry ??
Right on the bit statement you won't accept facts, I made no comment of the Public enquiry, unless you have made one up for me?
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
4,439
804
One of your claims Flecc was that report assumed Polonium 210 was only available via Russia.( or some thing similar)
The report makes no such assumption. They did summise by careful dating of half life they can fairly accurately calculate exactly when the poison was made. ( To within hours)
Then by careful examination of records its pisdible to identify where the poisin originated. Having done this report only indicates" a possibility" of the material originating in Russia. This conclusion merely stated the " finger print" of the poison could not be used to rule out Russia..and not as one to prove the affirmative.
( All around conclusions 9.16)
Its a similar story if you look at how the inquiry treated Beresovsky ( They understood him and went into his background to a lot of depth and in his relationship with Litvinenko).
I really cant see how anyone having read the report could arrive at conclusions you have using your " facts" to discredit a report that utilises the very facts you are talking about.
 
Last edited:

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
4,439
804
Right on the bit statement you won't accept facts, I made no comment of the Public enquiry, unless you have made one up for me?
So you accept the facts / conclusions in the report ?
( Main one being FSB ordered the killing.)
 

Advertisers