Dear @theywoodwright and @chloehadj, you insinuate that @wikileaks paid money to 'Alex'. This is a very serious charge to be suggesting. Before broadcasting, did you check with WL that any money had been paid out? @khrafnsson @ClarkeMicah @bbclysedoucet @nikgowing @Tim_Hayward_
https://twitter.com/PiersRobinson1/status/1330459431184830465
1) You also claim that 'reading the OPCW report, it's clear that the inspectors took the idea that the attack might have been faked very seriously. They discussed it as a scenario and tested their evidence against that possibility." Can you evidence this?
2) This is imp. because it was actually the original unpublished interim report and the toxicology minutes from the meeting with NATO chemical weapons experts that specified alternative hypotheses, whereas the published reports did not. wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/doc… 
3) Both of these were suppressed: the original interim report was secretly redacted by someone in the OPCW without the knowledge of the Douma team. This act of subterfuge was the first event that signalled corruption within the OPCW and reported on here dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7…
4) The clear conclusion of the NATO toxicologists that these victims were not killed by chlorine gas at location 2 was obfuscated in the final report: couragefound.org/2019/10/analyt…
5) So, it is important you evidence your claim that OPCW final report evaluated evidence and counter evidence, because it appears that such attempts at rigorous analysis were actually censored by someone within the OPCW.
6) You also state in the broadcast that the OPCW has said it has given all the inspectors the opportunity to voice their opinions. Can you evidence this as well because, in fact, the core issue throughout concerns the refusal by the OPCW to let dissenting voices be heard
7) There is now considerable evidence in the public domain showing that the OPCW has prevented its scientists from speaking: thegrayzone.com/2020/10/28/dra…
8) So, to repeat, can you evidence your claim that the OPCW says it has allowed all of its inspectors to be heard?
9) It is also very important, @theywoodwright @chloehadj, that you answer Professor Paul McKeigue's question regarding the burial location for the Douma victims. You have evaded this issue, repeatedly. syriapropagandamedia.org/public-stateme… @bbclysedoucet @NikGowing
,
,
10) You use your anonymous source in order to smear Ian Henderson, 'Alex' and Jose Bustani (first DG of the OPCW).This comes shortly after an anonymous source leaked disinformation to @bellingcat also in an attempt to smear 'Alex' @aaronjmate @ClarkeMicah. thegrayzone.com/2020/10/28/dra…
11) Given this, what steps did you take, @theywoodwright & @chloehadj, to establish the expertise and authority of this source? Was he/she actually on the FFM team, did they have expertise in ballistics/chemistry, did they actually deploy to Douma? @ClarkeMicah @Tim_Hayward
12) In fact, is the BBC 100% confident the source they used is indeed from the OPCW? What checks did you undertake in order to verify the source was who he claimed to be and were all BBC editorial guidelines adhered to?@theywoodwright @chloehadj @lysedoucet @NikGowing
13) Another BBC guidelines issue for @ChloeHadj and @theywoodwright concerns their use of an individual who appears to be associated with a group involved with beheading children:
https://twitter.com/Tim_Hayward_/status/1331166003443748870?s=20
14) Reliance on a source connected, in any way, with a group responsible for child murder is a matter of serious concern for the @bbc and requires immediate investigation
https://twitter.com/VanessaBeeley/status/1331159841344131072?s=20@BreesAnna @cerumol @NikGowing @bbclysedoucet @alextomo @lindseyhilsum @jonsnowC4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
