Tuesday, 20 March 2018

#DeleteFacebook is a monumentally stupid campaign for the political left to be pushing

We all know the left has a spectacular propensity for self-harm, from factionalism and splits, through to the alienating language that so many on the left tend to use, but the Cambridge Analytica Facebook data scandal has unleashed a truly spectacular self-harming campaign on the left.

Left-wing people are taking to Twitter to call for others to #DeleteFacebook.

Of course Facebook has some very serious problems, including the alleged misuse of Facebook data to create psychological warfare tools to rig elections, their hosting of disgusting terrorism-inspiring extreme-right hate chambers like Britain First for years, their continued promotion of fake news, and their willingness to allow political parties and campaigns to spread outright lies through targeted dark ads.

I'm clearly not denying Facebook has serious problems, but to focus on all of the problems and refuse to recognise that Facebook was the scene of a massive left-wing victory during the 2017 General Election is wilful myopia.

After decades of hard-right neoliberalism completely dominating the means of communication, suddenly Facebook provided a voice to people to express an alternative.

Analysis by The Guardian found that every single one of the 30 most viral political stories on Facebook during GE2017 was pro-Corbyn, anti-Tory, or both.

My own analysis demonstrated that a small rag-tag bunch of left-wing political bloggers completely annihilated the Tories and the mainstream press for Facebook virality during the final week of the GE2017 campaign.

The 2017 General Election proved that there was an enormous public appetite for left-wing news that dared to step outside the parameters of the narrow spectrum of permissable mainstream media debate.

People wanted to read analysis that offered an alternative to the ridiculous caricature of Jeremy Corbyn as an irredeemable and incompetent terrorist-sympathising communist, and they wanted to read analysis that actually held the Tories to account for the seven years of ruinous austerity dogma, wage repression, local government cuts, privatisation scams, and impoverishment schemes they'd overseen.

2017 was the moment that the left finally fought back against the mainstream media cheerleaders of neoliberalism, and Facebook was the battlefield on which this all-too-rare left-wing victory was won.

So the idea that left-wing people should suddenly up sticks and abandon the vital media territory they've only just won, without even putting up a fight, is quite extraordinary.

Some might argue that Twitter is a better platform for political debate, but anyone who thinks winning on Twitter would be enough on its own is completely delusional.

Only 7% of British people have a Twitter account, significantly fewer are regular Twitter users, and even fewer still are deep into 'politics Twitter'.

On the other hand almost half of British people have a Facebook account. 

If you concede defeat on Facebook then you haven't got a chance of winning the social media battle. It's that simple.

Nobody who is on Facebook to keep in touch with their friends and family is going to delete it over a load of Cambridge Analytica scandals they probably don't even understand that well.
The right obviously won't care a jot that a dodgy company allegedly misused Facebook data to deliver Britain to a the Brextremists and the White House to Trump, so it's going to be predominantly lefties and liberals who go along with this #DeleteFacebook campaign.

So the only people who are going to strop off Facebook are politically active people on the left.

What could actually be a worse idea than left-wing people abandoning the largest and most effective social media platform of all, and leaving it to the Tories and the extreme-right?

Facebook is a fantastic means by which politically engaged people like me can reach out to less politically engaged people to present alternatives to the right-wing tropes that remain almost ubiquitous in the mainstream media.

And what's more is that the evidence shows that people are vastly more likely to share a political story if it's come to them via a friend, family neighbour, or work colleague than they are to share content that's been targeted at them in sponsored Facebook ads.

Yet the #DeleteFacebook crowd are pushing for people on the left to just throw this fantastic means of reaching out to ordinary people away, and abandon it to the Tories and the extreme-right!

Of course Facebook needs to be held to account for their actions. Of course Facebook has a responsibility to introduce new measures to combat stuff like dodgy data-mining, fake news spreaders, extreme-right hate chambers, and dishonest political dark ads.

But you'd have to be completely and utterly delusional to imagine that a whole bunch of left-wing people deleting their Facebook accounts and conceding the biggest social media platform of all to the Tories and the extreme-right is a great idea.

We only just cracked a way to counteract the nefarious influence of the billionaire hard-right press barons who have ruled the parameters of UK public discourse for decades, and these #DeleteFacebook melts want us to just throw it away!

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


If the Tories had any sense they'd make hapless Ben Bradley delete his Twitter account

The Tory MP Ben Bradley isn't just a nasty piece of work who defames his political opponents, calls for the sterilisation of poor people, and joked with Iain Duncan Smith about castrating a journalist who dared to criticise him, he's also a remarkably dim bulb who couldn't spot a public relations own goal if it slapped him in the face.

Fresh from creating the most viral political Twitter disaster British politics has ever seen with his apology for defaming Jeremy Corbyn, Ben Bradley must have thought that he'd scored a magnificent public relations goal by announcing the defection of two Ashfield councillors from Labour to the Tories.

'Oh good' he must have thought, 'a chance to bash Jeremy Corbyn by citing "Momentum" as the reason for the defections'.

The problem of course is that these defections don't really do anything to make the Tories look good, but do an awful lot to reinforce the Labour left narrative that the Labour Party has been somewhat over-run by a bunch of self-serving right-wing neoliberals in recent decades, and that re-selection is a means of removing the worst of these "Red Tory" infiltrators from the party.

If these defecting councillors have decided that they've got more in common with the pro-privatisation, pro-austerity, welfare-slashing, workers' rights trashing, NHS vandalising, disability discriminating, local government wrecking, blue-kip panderning, hard-right ultranationalist Tories than with their fellow Labour Party members ... then what the hell were they doing in the Labour Party in the first place?

Aside from actively confirming the accusation that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Red Tories" and adding weight to the calls for re-selection of Labour MPs to ensure they actually represent the will of the party membership rather than their own right-wing agenda ... there's more.

It turns out that one of the defectors has actually been democratically deselected as a Labour Party candidate by local people, and was being investigated by the party over allegations of racism!

It tells us a lot about the Tories that they're so keen to make a fanfare of poaching a Labour councillor, but that they "forgot" to mention the fact their new guy ran away because he's under investigation for alleged racism.

I'm a strong believer in due process, so it's absolutely right that Labour were investigating the issue internally before taking action, but now that Lee Anderson has damaged the Labour Party further by defecting to the Tory party, it seems like the racism allegations should be made public, because there's no conceivable justification for conducting an internal party investigation into the alleged racism of a guy who is now another party's politician.

So in one failed PR stunt Ben Bradley has managed to clearly demonstrate the validity of the left-wing "red Tory" narrative about the problem of pro-austerity pro-privatisation neoliberals in the Labour Party, and also make the Tory party look so desperate that they're lapping up the Labour Party's disgusting unwanted dregs!

But then again, don't the unwanted backstabbing alleged racist Lee Anderson and the elitist sterilise the poor proven liar Ben Bradley just make a perfect couple?

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Vince Cable is actually complaining about the consequences of flogging the Royal Mail!

In the Autumn of 2013 Vince Cable was the Tory/Lib-Dem Coalition minister who sold off the Royal Mail to a bunch of private profiteers at way below its market value. In 2017 he has the absolute brass neck to complain about the consequences of that sale.

Vince knew that he was ripping off the public by flogging the Royal Mail at way below its real market value, but he simply didn't care.

Vince knew that public opinion was dead set against the sell-off, with 67% of the public against to just 20% in favour, but he went ahead anyway.

Vince knew that Royal Mail sorting offices across the nation were sitting on prime bits of development land worth £billions, and that the sale of just a few of these sorting offices would recoup the entire £2 billion price he flogged the Royal Mail off for.

In hindsight the sale of the Royal Mail has been described as "crony capitalism at its worst" and the widespread predictions that the private owners would cash in on the property portfolio have come true.

When Vince Cable flogged off the Royal Mail in 2013 he valued the 6.25 acre Mount Pleasant sorting office at £29 million. Just a few years later in 2017 the private owners flogged it off to developers for £193 million. 

A cool £164 million profit at the public's expense.

The same story in Battersea where 2.7 acres were sold off for £101 million, when the "book value" of the land was marked as just £12.9 million when Vince flogged it off.

The sale of just two London sites has raked in almost £300 million for the private owners of what was our public property just a few years ago, yet when Vince flogged it off he priced the entire Royal Mail property portfolio of over 2,600 sites at just £787 million!

Within five years the private profiteers Vince flogged our property to have recouped almost half of his total property valuation with just two property sales!

Anyone would have thought that the man responsible for inflicting such a brazen rip-off on the British public would disappear from public life in shame, but not Vince.

After losing almost all of their MPs as a result of their collusion with the Tories and their ruinous austerity agenda the Lib-Dems have been left with a rump of just a dozen MPs, and in their wisdom they decided to appoint the man responsible for this outrageous rip-off as their party leader!

And now Vince is on Twitter complaining about the planned closure of the Royal Mail sorting office in Hampton in his own constituency.

Vince Cable was responsible for one of the most brazen public swindles of the Coalition government, but he's so arrogant that he thinks that everyone will have just forgotten by now.

He's so confident that he's got away with this massive swindle that he's actually trying to score political brownie points for 
protesting against one of the consequences of the rip-off privatisation he carried out less than five years ago!

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Monday, 19 March 2018

Jacob Rees-Mogg has £millions in dodgy Russian investments

Aside from being a living 'Lord Snooty' caricature of the quintessential English Toff, Jacob Rees-Mogg has strategically positioned himself as one of the most powerful people within the ruling Tory party, despite never even having served as a junior government minister.

The way he's done this is by becoming the leader of the hard-right Brextremist 'party within a party' called the European Reform Group (ERG). This shadowy organisation rakes in taxpayers' cash to fund their campaign in favour of the hardest possible Brexit, and has easily enough members to call a no confidence vote in Theresa May at any moment.

The two previous leaders of this Brextremist pressure group Steve Baker and Suella Fernandes have both been rewarded with positions in Theresa May's government, but Rees-Mogg doesn't seem to just be interested in bagging some junior ministerial role, he's intent on using the ERG's influence over Theresa May to control her every move.

May knows that if she steps out of line over any issue, the ERG have the power to oust her because they've got more than enough members to trigger a leadership election by registering letters of no confidence with the Chairman of the 1922 Committee (the archaic method by which the Tory party dispose of unwanted leaders like Margaret Thatcher and iain Duncan Smith).

Theresa May knows that if she defies the ERG then she'll be out of Downing Street in a flash.

The upshot of all of this is that as the leader of the ERG Jacob Rees-Mogg is the de facto Prime Minister, a man who gets to call all the shots, but doesn't have to take any of the flak when things go wrong because he can use the hapless and hopeless Theresa May as a bullet shield.

One interesting question is whether Rees-Mogg has used his indisputable power over the Prime Minister to push for things that go beyond the hard Brexit fanaticism that the secretive ERG pressure group exists to promote.

For example have Rees-Mogg and the ERG had any influence over the Tories' extremely pro-Russian behaviour in the weeks before the Salisbury attack for example?

Given the revelation that Rees-Mogg's Somerset Capital Management fund has a huge £90 million investment in Russia, including £57 million in the blacklisted Russian Sberbank, the very recent Tory party decision to deliberately obstruct the introduction of Magnitsky powers to clamp down on dodgy Russian money looks a tad suspicious.

Sberbank is already subject to EU and US economic sanctions, but somehow Rees-Mogg and his Somerset Capital management chums have seen fit to retain this dodgy investment despite the sanctions, and £43 million worth of other Russian assets. 

These kinds of Russian investments obviously mean that any serious government moves to clamp down on Russian money flowing in and out of the UK would represent a risk to Rees-Mogg's profit margins.

Because of the secrecy of their operation it's impossible to know whether Rees-Mogg and the ERG are responsible for the Tory government's very recent policy of obstructing Magnitsky powers, but their continual secrecy (despite being bankrolled by the taxpayer) leaves questions like this hanging in the air.

If they insist on being so secretive about their influence on government policy, it's clearly invites questions about whether they would use this secret influence to further their own financial interests.

Unless they give up the secrecy and actually publish stuff like their membership list, all of their sources of funding, their contacts and communications with government ministers, their contacts with people and institutions outside the Tory party, and their own financial conflicts of interest, then these kinds of questions about how their influence could be misused are inevitable aren't they?

It is of course possible to come at it from an alternative direction and ask the Tory government to provide a detailed explanation of their decision to brazenly obstruct Magnitsky powers up until very days before the Salisbury attack, but then that would require some journalists within the Westminster lobby to earn their salaries by actually holding the powerful to account, rather than uncritically churning out whatever hard-right propaganda trope is the chosen narrative of the day.

Would Jacob Rees-Mogg abuse his position as the most powerful man in the Tory party to further his own financial interests?

Given the culture of secrecy that runs through the ERG and Theresa May's autocratic government, who knows if it's even theoretically possible to answer the question. But given the abject lack of decent journalists within the Westminster bubble, it's almost certainly a question that will never be answered.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Anna Campbell was killed by Theresa May's tyrannical Turkish mates

Anna Campbell gave up her comfortable western lifestyle and her job to travel to the Kurdish region of northern Syria in order to fight ISIS. She did this because the democratic Kurdish Rojava are demonstrably the only real good guys in the brutal Syrian civil war (the other main forces being the Assad regime, ISIS, other Islamist terrorists, Russia, Turkey, and the increasingly marginalised anti-Assad rebels who kicked the whole thing off).

Of course she knew that she was putting her life in danger by taking up arms to defend Kurdish democracy from the threat of ISIS, but she wanted to help make the world a better place.

Anna was killed last week as a result of Turkish shelling in the Kurdish town of Afrin.

Turkey has continually intervened in the Syrian conflict in order to attack the Kurdish forces that are trying to drive ISIS and the other Islamist fanatics out of Syria.

Turkey also stands accused of allowing Islamist extremists and military supplies to flow across the border into and out of Syria, treating wounded ISIS fighters in Turkish hospitals, and funding ISIS by buying their oil.

Aside from their interventions in Syria to support ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups, Turkey itself is in the grip of a brutal and repressive dictatorship. There are more journalists in Turkish jails than any other country on earth.

Theresa May and the Tories don't care about any of this though. Human rights violations in Turkey, support for vile Islamist terrorists in neighbouring countries, attacks on the Kurds who are fighting back against ISIS ... it's all swept under the carpet because just like Saudi Arabia, Turkey is a marketplace for British weapons.

Just a couple of months ago Theresa May and the Tories signed a £100 million fighter jet deal with the Turkish tyrant Erdo─čan.

And Theresa May and the Tories have also flogged an incredible £4.6 billion worth of arms Saudi Arabia in the full knowledge that they're a barbaric tyranny that funds, arms, and supplies terrorist fighters to ISIS, and also uses British weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen.

If Anna Campbell hadn't been killed by the British-backed Turkish forces behind her, she could just have easily have been killed by the Saudi Arabian and Turkish backed ISIS terrorists in front of her. Both of the enemies that wanted to kill Anna and wipe out the emerging democracy in Kurdistan are ultimately backed by Theresa May and the Tories.

Probably the worst thing of all is that it's only really in unusual cases where this Tories' grotesque foreign policy of hawking weapons to the most brutal and tyrannical regimes on earth ends up killing a British citizen that the British media pay any kind of attention.

So often the British press are willing to turn a blind eye when it's gays and atheists being beheaded and crucified in Saudi Arabia; huge numbers of Yemeni civilians suffering Saudi war crimes and starvation; dozens of Turkish journalists languishing in jail for doing their jobs; millions of civilians displaced in Syria and Iraq as the Turkish/Saudi backed Islamist terrorists run amok; or hundreds of Kurdish democratic fighters being shot in the back by Turkish forces as they try to defend their region from Islamist terrorism.

When Britain should be following Anna Campbell's lead and standing in solidarity with one of the few genuinely democratic movements in the Middle East, our government actually arms and supports the tyrants who seek to destroy them.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Sunday, 18 March 2018

Why did the Russian Embassy back Theresa May at the 2017 General Election?

Backing one particular political party in another country's general election is a serious breach of diplomatic protocol. Even if governments privately favour one particular party to win in another country's election, it's considered very bad diplomatic form to actually attempt to sway the election with partisan public statements.

So aside from demonstrating their willingness to ignore diplomatic protocol and interfere in other nations' sovereign affairs, why would the Russian Embassy have chosen to back Theresa May and the Tories at the 2017 General Election?

Here are a few potential answers:
Whatever the reason, it's telling that the Russians were backing Theresa May in 2017, yet the UK mainstream media are intent on spewing out reality-reversing propaganda that Jeremy Corbyn is the "Russian stooge".

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Flowers and fist bumps: Who thinks Theresa May has done well on the Salisbury attack?

One of the most incredible things about the response to the Salisbury nerve agent attack is that as the result of an absolute barrage of reality-reversing propaganda from the mainstream media (including the BBC) millions have been duped into believing that Theresa May has actually done a good job of responding to it.

In this article I'm going to go through just a few of the things that demonstrate what an appalling job she's actually done.

Russian cash

The Tories have taken an astounding £3 million in donations from Russian oligarchs and Putin cronies since 2010, including £800,000+ since Theresa May became Prime Minister. In the wake of this chemical weapons attack on British soil they've steadfastly refused to return a penny of it.

Just imagine the purely hypothetical situation that Iran had conducted a chemical weapons attack on British soil, and that the Labour Party coffers were stuffed with £3 million in Iranian cash, and that Jeremy Corbyn was refusing to pay back a penny of it or explain what kind of influence all that cash had bought.

Do you honestly think the mainstream media wouldn't be making any fuss over it, and that public opinion of Corbyn's handling of the situation would be favourable?

Gavin Williamson 1

Theresa May appointed the staggeringly underqualified former fireplace salesman Gavin Williamson as Defence Secretary in her shambolic January 2018 reshuffle. For his first two months in the job he did virtually nothing except allow the Tory party to sell personal access to him for £30,000 to the wife of a former Putin finance minister. What Williamson and this Putin stooge discussed has not been made public.

Magnitsky powers

Just two weeks before the Salisbury attack the Tory government brazenly obstructed Labour's efforts to introduce Magnitsky powers to clamp down on the flood of Russian dark money flowing into the City of London and the UK housing market.

An Opinium poll found that 65% of British people are in favour of Magnitsky powes as opposed to just 5% against, but thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media, neither Theresa May nor other senior Tory ministers have been grilled over why they brazenly obstructed these Magnitsky powers just a couple of weeks ago.


Theresa May eventually caved in to Jeremy Corbyn's pressure and announced that the Tories would be seeking to introduce Magnitsky powers like he has been arguining in favour of for eight years, however the mainstream press decided not to portray this as the screeching Tory U-turn that it so clearly is.

How can a political party go from crudely and brazenly obstructing efforts to introduce Magnitsky powers two weeks ago, to suddenly supporting them, without anyone in the mainstream media clocking it as a massive U-turn?

Hiding information

For the best part of a week the Tories and their chums in the mainstream press derided Jeremy Corbyn for daring to ask questions about the proof that Russians were behind the attack.

Then it turned out that Theresa May had actually hidden intelligence about the attack from Corbyn. Cutting Corbyn out of the intelligence loop then deriding him for asking questions is about as cynical a ploy as can be imagined, especially when the subject under debate is an unprecedented chemical weapons attack on British soil.

Playing politics

Mainstream media hacks were quick to accuse Corbyn of "politicising the attack" when he asked pertinent questions about the flood of Russian cash into Tory party coffers and their continual obstruction of Magnitsky powers.

But then they "forgot" to make similarly outraged (and much more justified) accusations that Theresa May and the Tories had been "politicising the attack" by hiding vital information from Corbyn, then caricaturing him as some kind of Russian stooge for ... erm ... asking for more information!

Gavin Williamson 2

After deriding Corbyn's calm evidence-seeking approach to the attack for the best part of a week, the Tories and the mainstream press turned a blind eye to Gavin Williamson's incredible sub-juvenile whine that "Russia should go away and shut up".

If Theresa May had any authority whatever over her shambles of a party she would have slapped Williamson down for demeaning his office like that, issued an official retraction and a clear reiteration of Britain's actual position, and then told the catastrophically unfit Williamson to submit his resignation.

She didn't do any of that because he's one of her last remaining allies within the party, meaning she'd rather have Britain made a laughing stock on the world stage than weaken her own position within the Tory party.

Boris Johnson

Gavin Williamson is not the only Tory minister to have made a complete pillock of himself and been allowed to get away with it Scott free.

Aside from all of his bumbling rhetoric, Boris Johnson has tied himself in an impossible knot by claiming that Russia has been building up a stockpile of chemical weapons, which is in stark contrast to the findings of the Organisation for Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) who oversaw and certified Russia's destruction of their chemical weapons programme, then describing the OPCW are "reliable" "technical experts".

Now they're either reliable technical experts or they're a bunch of bumbling idiots who certified Russia's destruction of their chemical weapons while Russia was busy expanding their chemical weapons programme. They simply can't be both.

This kind of bumbling and self-contradictory "making it up as he goes along" rubbish is an absolute embarrassment to Britain, but Theresa May can't sack him, or even publicly disagree with him, because she knows that the secretive cabal of ERG Brextremists who control her every move would have here out of Downing Street in a flash if she even tried it.

Fist bumps and selfies

Theresa May's visit to Salisbury was an utterly bizarre spectacle. She was visiting the site of an unprecedented chemical weapons attack on British soil, with three people gravely ill in hospital, and she treated it like she was some C list actor delighted that they've been invited to a glamorous film premiere, when they know they didn;t do anything to deserve it.

Fist bumps here, selfies there, and a truly cringeworthy photo op with a baby thrown in too.

At a time of national crisis do we want a leader who takes the situation seriously and is seen to have concern for the victims and their families, or do we want one who cavorts around the crime scene like a C-list celebrity?


I guess regular Another Angry Voice readers will at least be familiar with some of this damning evidence, but millions clearly aren't.

Millions of people remain confined within carefully curated mainstream media echo chambers. They get their politics from the right-wing propaganda rags, from the BBC, and maybe from the commercial radio news items on the workplace radio. And that's it.

In order to unmask the mainstream media's reality-reversed propaganda deceptions it's no good just talking amongst ourselves, we need to get the real information out there to people who wouldn't otherwise see it.

Feel free to print this article off, email it, or share it in whatever way you see fit.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Saturday, 17 March 2018

Who has got the nuttiest Salisbury conspiracy theory?

In the feverish atmosphere in the wake of the Salisbury nerve agent attack there have been some absolutely bonkers conspiracy theories flying around.

In this article I'm going to attempt to give a measured perspective on the attack before detailing some of the nuttiest reactions.

The difference between questions and conspiracy theories

Like almost everyone reading this article, I don't have access to the chemical analysis that's been conducted on the nerve agent, and I don't have access to any intelligence that may have been gathered in relation to the attack.

This lack of information means that it's impossible to fly off into alternative explanations for the attack without the danger of wandering off into the tinfoil hat conspiracy zone.

However this lack of vital information doesn't prevent us from asking questions about the official position, which according to Tory ministers like Boris Johnson, involved Vladimir Putin directly ordering this hopelessly botched hit on a long-retired double agent.

The glaring problem with this theory is that it relies on the idea that Putin is some kind of idiot with no regard for consequences. Of course Putin is your archetypal strong-man tyrant with a disregard for human rights, but if you've ever actually paid attention to any of his speeches, he's clearly an intelligent man, not an idiot.

So, given that just a couple of weeks ago the Tory government pliantly did Putin's bidding by obstructing Labour's efforts to introduce Magnitsky powers to clamp down on all the Russian dark money sloshing around in the City of London, the UK housing market, and the coffers of the Tory party, why would Putin then decide to personally authorise an attack that would massively increase the chances of Magnitsky sanctions being imposed?

You can attempt to answer this kind of question in whatever way you like, but be careful you don't end up wandering off into the tinfoil hat twilight zone  ...

The fireman conspiracy

The first conspiracy theory to deal with is the idea that the attack was faked because of one out-of-context photograph of firemen with no biohazard suits standing next to people with biohazard suits.

It says a lot about the kind of person you are if you can look at a single photo and deduce a convoluted conspiracy theory from it, which you then believe without giving thought to other potential explanations, like maybe the fact that people in biohazard suits need to take off their biohazard suits at some point. 

Perhaps a much simpler explanation that the whole attack being an elaborate hoax, is that that's what was going on?
The evil mother-in-law

Then there's the theory that Yulia Skripal was poisoned by her future mother-in-law who supposedly doesn't want her son to marry the daughter of an ex-spy.

How the evil mother-in-law got her hands on a supply of highly toxic nerve agent isn't related in this particular conspiracy theory.

It was the CIA

If you really want to get into the kooky conspiracy shit, then UKIP is definitely a great place to turn. I mean who could forget the Ukipper "Somerset floods were caused by gay marriage" theory from a few years ago?

Well Godfrey Bloom has publicly stated his suspicion that the attack was carried out by the CIA in order to ringfence the budget for the military industrial complex.

It's interesting to see the way the hard-right UKIP mob have moved from adoration of anything American to outright hostility and conspiracy theorising against the US intelligence services ever since the Mueller investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign started getting serious.

It's all about Brexit

Another bizarre UKIP conspiracy theory is that the Salisbury attack is a false flag attack orchestrated by the British government in order to derail Brexit!

Here's what Richard Wood of UKIP told Sputnik News: 

"Theresa May has been absolutely stupid because she is now in a hole over Brexit with the European Union and the EU is doing its best to keep Britain in and we want to be out. The whole point about this fiasco is that something happened and Mrs. May is now being able to point another finger at Russia and say this is our enemy. They are finding some excuse to actually blame Russia for something else so Russia becomes a big bad man again to take the pressure off Theresa May with the Brexit negotiations because she is not getting anywhere. Everybody I speak to is not on her side and not against Russia. I do think it was staged."
Trust the UKIP loons to come up with a load of batshit crazy nonsense about how it's all a conspiracy to undermine their beloved Brexit.

It's all about the UN

Another theory doing the rounds is that the Salisbury incident was a "false flag" attack designed to ramp up international pressure to get Russia thrown off the UN Security Council.

The idea that Russia could be removed from the Security Council over this incident is as impractical as it is unrealistic.

If Russia and the United States managed to stay part of the UN Security Council together throughout the theft of US nuclear weapons secrets, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Olympic boycotts, countless near misses and sanctions impositions, and all of that, how on earth is an incident like Salisbury going to register enough impact to essentially destroy the United Nations?

Even if the endgame was to get Russia thrown off the UN Security Council, how would that be achieved given that Russia has a Security Council veto, and China (another of the 5 permanent members) would obviously never let it happen either?

It's all about football

Then there's the probably the most ridiculous theory that the attack was staged to somehow undermine Russia's hosting of the FIFA World Cup, as if football is somehow the most important thing in the world.

The problem with wild conspiracy theories like this is that there's always some absolute dullard who comes along to give credence to such nonsense. In this case the right-wing Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, who has started gabbing on about how the UK should somehow form a global alliance to pressurise FIFA to delay the World Cup until 2019 and ban Russia as the hosts!

If Argentina being over-run by one of the most violent and repressive military dictatorships of the late 20th Century wasn't enough to stop the World Cup in 1978, then it seems a tad unlikely that Kinnock is going to succeed with his plot to get this summer's World Cup taken off Russia.

Trust a right-wing Labour melt like Kinnock to hear the most bonkers conspiracy theory of all, think it's actually a really good idea, and then try to pass it off as his own policy!

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.