Video: BBC ignores Amesbury brother – ‘he’s alright, I’m not sure how he got involved with that lot”

mrowley.png

Matthew Rowley speaking to the BBC.

Earlier, the SKWAWKBOX published a pithy comment by a Twitter user that neatly summed up the huge, unresolved questions with the official narrative of events in Salisbury and now Amesbury in Wiltshire.

Those questions grew considerably this morning in an interview televised by the BBC – but were ignored, even rushed past, by the broadcaster in a sad demonstration of the parlous state of mainstream journalism.

Matt Rowley, the brother of one of the Amesbury victims who fell ill this week, was interviewed during a short outside broadcast. His interview contained two remarkable comments:

By any journalistic standards, Matthew Rowley’s comments merited further exploration.

The comment about his brother getting ‘involved with that lot’ might just be an odd way of saying ‘came into contact with the toxin’. But it might mean something entirely different – yet there was no probing, no request for clarification.

Rowley’s comment that his brother is ‘fit’ and ‘alright’ after his reported exposure to a ‘deadly’ nerve toxin surely needed to be unpacked for the sake of viewers’ understanding – but the comment was not only ignored after briefly seeming to throw the interviewer out of his stride, but was then quickly painted over by the interviewer’s return to the theme of the younger Rowley’s critical condition.

That comment was strikingly reminiscent of Yulia Skripal’s words to her cousin in a call played on Russian television:

Everyone’s ok, he’s resting… Everyone’s health is ok.

What did Matthew Rowley mean by his comments to BBC News? We don’t know, because he wasn’t asked. Hopefully someone will – and soon.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

23 responses to “Video: BBC ignores Amesbury brother – ‘he’s alright, I’m not sure how he got involved with that lot”

  1. I thought “Oh, he’s alright. He’s fit and… yeah, he’s alright” sounded like a brother used to fending off insensitive questions asked about his brother’s addiction.
    I’m wrong a lot though.

  2. If these 2 victims are fortunate enough to recover physically I doubt that their long term phycological recovery will be aided by the endless gossip and speculation about their private lives.

    • Oh, so are you saying that people shouldn’t question the official narrative (which YOU appear to have swallowed wholesale, as with the Skripals saga)? Are you trying to conflate their ‘private lives’ with the questioning of the official line?

      • Don’t be so ridiculous!

        I’ve quite simply stated exactly what I meant to say above. Any other interpretation you choose to put on that to suit your own agenda is entirely your own.

      • David & Allan. My comment above is clear and concise. Perhaps you could explain why you regard this as an accusation against you.

        I haven’t accused either of you of anything. So I’m quite puzzled why you are on here so forcefully defending yourselves against, what?

    • Their lives stopped being private the minute the media reported their names and personal details.
      I don’t gossip.
      My speculation has only been directed to the matter in hand.
      Your virtue signalling is transparently driven by spite.
      I’d rather hoped you were over that. Psychologically 🙂 speaking.
      I continue to appreciate many of your comments despite our differences.

    • So who exactly is doing all the endless gossop and speculation about their private lives? The tabloid papers, right. So why bring it up on skwawkbox, as if to imply that posters on here are doing that?

      Anyway, so you completely agree that we all have every right to question the official narrative, yes?

    • But you missed the point (IMO)… when the brother commented they were “involved with that lot”, surely a good journalists next question should be “who do you mean, what ‘lot’ was your Brother involved with?”

      • “But you missed the point (IMO)…”

        I may have missed the point you wanted to make but as far as I’m concerned I made the point I wanted to make in a clear and concise way. Why don’t you take ta few seconds to re-read what I actually said and comment on that instead.

      • @SteveH … yes there is “endless gossip and speculation about their private lives” but the fault of that is the government and the MSM who are failing to question the official line, especially when faced with statements from those close to the victims (in this case his brother) which raise questions.

        Having written that it’s been announced one of the two recent victims has now died. My thoughts go to her family and friends who are now suffering through this. Hopefully they will be allowed to mourn in peace.

  3. Pingback: Please support the SKWAWKBOX. Here’s what it’s been doing | RedZine·

  4. In a statement today … Savid Javid states we shouldn’t jump to conclusions… yet continued “Clearly, what we have already determined, what our expert scientists have determined, is that the nerve agent in this incident is the exact same nerve agent as was used back in March [when the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned].

    “We know back in March that was the Russians. We know it was a barbaric, inhuman act by the Russian state.”

    So don’t jump to conclusions… but based on the (possibly erroneous) conclusions we made before it’s definitely likely to be the same people!

  5. SteveH 07/07/2018 at 6:34 pm · ·
    David & Allan. My comment above is clear and concise. Perhaps you could explain why you regard this as an accusation against you.

    I haven’t accused either of you of anything. So I’m quite puzzled why you are on here so forcefully defending yourselves against, what?
    ——————————————————————————————-

    Steve, nobody here is likely to be susceptible to Gaslighting.
    You’ve been criticising other people’s replies enough times that I’m starting to wonder if you’re genuinely an ally.

    • Do you know what Gaslighting means, perhaps you could explain how my original comment can be described as ‘Gaslighting’ and whilst you’re at it could you could justify you earlier post of “Your virtue signalling is transparently driven by spite. I’d rather hoped you were over that.”.
      Incidentally I happen to agree with your first post on this thread posted on 06/07/2018 at 3:49 pm

  6. Please stop asking for explanations – it’s a diversionary technique unworthy of you, this discussion and everyone here over the age of six.

    ‘Gaslighting’ clearly referred to the post of yours which I quoted.
    Your ‘endless gossip and speculation’ immediately followed my first post here – as your ‘victim blaming’ accusation immediately followed my reply to Allan in another thread.
    Of course you were referring to my posts.

    If you want to criticise, criticise openly – your posts are as ‘clear and concise’ as May is strong and stable.

    • This is descending into nonsense and getting a little tiresome.

      “Please stop asking for explanations – it’s a diversionary technique unworthy of you, this discussion and everyone here over the age of six.
      That’s a bit pathetic. It is hardly my fault that you can’t come up with one, is it?

      ‘Gaslighting’ clearly referred to the post of yours which I quoted.
      Your ‘endless gossip and speculation’ immediately followed my first post here – as your ‘victim blaming’ accusation immediately followed my reply to Allan in another thread.
      Of course you were referring to my posts. “

      Thanks, but what it was referring to I don’t believe that was ever in dispute. However what I did want to know is how you think the term ‘Gaslighting’ applies to my comment. You may wish to try consulting Google first. Also if you are going to quote me then please have the courtesy to quote in full rather than a selected excerpt that could mislead.

      If I’d intended it as a dig at you then obviously I would have posted it as a reply to your comment, as I did with my Victim Blaming comment that you refer to. A comment that I posted because I thought that the thread was quickly descending into the same victim blaming MSM narrative of don’t worry normal people are safe it’s only people with an unconventional lifestyle that are at risk.
      It would obviously be a little ridiculous of you to suggest that I should have waited for someone else to post first just in case you thought for reasons best known to yourself that it was aimed at you, wouldn’t it?

      If you want to criticise, criticise openly – your posts are as ‘clear and concise’ as May is strong and stable.

      It is hardly my fault that you’ve got it into your head that my comment above is referring to you, for someone who hasn’t been accused of anything on this thread you are expending an awful lot of time and energy denying, what?

      For the benefit of those who have lost track of this nonsense just let’s remind ourselves of my original post.
      If these 2 victims are fortunate enough to recover physically I doubt that their long term psychological recovery will be aided by the endless gossip and speculation about their private lives

      Please enlighten us all including yourself apparently. What is it that you actually disagree with or find confusing?

  7. Please refer to my previous posts for the answers to your questions.

    • FFS what answers, you’ve yet to give one.

      Please grow a pair and either put-up or shut-up.

  8. ‘Basu said of his detectives: “They are unable to say at this moment whether or not the nerve agent found in this incident is linked to the attack in March on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. However, this remains our main line of inquiry.‘
    Strikes me that “main line of inquiry” is a long way from “highly likely”.

  9. Pingback: Breaking: Met Police ‘find bottle of Novichok’ at Rowley’s residence | The SKWAWKBOX·

  10. Pingback: Breaking: Met Police ‘find bottle of Novichok’ at Rowley’s residence | RedZine·

  11. Pingback: CCTV, 12 days when police failed to find ‘Novichok bottle’ – and the questions no MSM are asking | The SKWAWKBOX·

  12. Pingback: CCTV, 12 days when police failed to find ‘Novichok bottle’ – and the questions no MSM are asking | RedZine·

Leave a Reply