No proof of Russia’s guilt so back down

I DON’T often agree with Corbyn, but he was right to caution against precipitate action until all the facts had been assembled regarding the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

After all, Corbyn was right about Iraq, Syria and Libya. It seems that being innocent until proven guilty has been replaced by guilty until proven innocent.

What was Putin’s motive? What did he stand to gain? He hardly wanted an international incident at election time and endanger the World Cup from being held in Russia. The manner of the assassination attempt was so amateurish as to be beyond belief. To use a nerve agent made in Russia and leave traces of it scattered like confetti around Salisbury is like a murderer leaving the murder weapon covered in his/her fingerprints at the crime scene. Surely the Russian secret service can’t be that incompetent? If so, they make Mr Bean look like a professional spy.

Other possibilities should be investigated, such as a revenge killing by a former colleague or an attempt to increase the tension between Russia and the West in order to maximise arms sales and profits.

The subsequent reaction of Russian politicians and media in denying Russia was responsible highlighted how little regard they have for a UK which they see as being largely irrelevant in a world dominated by high-tech military superpowers.

As we are about to leave the EU and stand alone in the world, this is hardly the time to pick a tit-for-tat fight with the Russian bear, especially in the absence of conclusive proof of Putin’s guilt. Bryan D Prescott Caerphilly