2010 – Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer jailed for spying for Britain, is released and flown to the UK as part of a swap with Russian agents caught in the United States. He settles in Salisbury.
March 3, 2018 – Yulia Skripal arrives at Heathrow Airport from Russia to visit her father in England.
March 4, 9.15am – Sergei Skripal’s burgundy BMW is seen in suburban Salisbury, near a cemetery, where his wife and son are commemorated.
March 4, 1.30pm – The BMW is seen driving toward central Salisbury.
March 4, 1.40pm – The BMW is parked at a lot in central Salisbury.

March 4, afternoon – Sergei and Yulia Skripal visit the Bishops Mill pub.
March 4, 2.20pm to 3.35pm – Sergei and Yulia Skripal have lunch at the Zizzi restaurant.
March 4, 4.15pm – Emergency services are called by a passer-by concerned about a man and a woman in Salisbury city centre.
Officers find the Skripals unconscious on a bench. They are taken to Salisbury District Hospital, where they remain in critical condition.
March 5, morning – Police say two people in Salisbury are being treated for suspected exposure to an unknown substance.

March 5, afternoon – Wiltshire Police, along with Public Health England, declare a ‘major incident’
March 7 – Police announce that the Skripals were likely poisoned with a nerve agent in a targeted murder attempt.
They disclose that a police officer who responded to the incident is in serious condition in a hospital.
March 8 – Home Secretary Amber Rudd describes the use of a nerve agent on UK soil was a ‘brazen and reckless act’ of attempted murder
March 9 – About 180 troops trained in chemical warfare and decontamination are deployed to Salisbury to help with the police investigation.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says Moscow might be willing to assist with the investigation but expresses resentment at suggestions the Kremlin was behind the attack.
March 11 – Public health officials tell people who visited the Zizzi restaurant or Bishops Mill pub in Salisbury on the day of the attack or the next day to wash their clothes as a precaution.
March 12, morning- Prime Minister Theresa May tells the House of Commons that the Skripals were poisoned with Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
March 12, afternoon – Public Health England ask everyone who visited Salisbury town centre on the day of the attack to wash all of their clothes and belongings.

March 14 – The PM announces the expulsion of 23 suspected Russian spies from the country’s UK Embassy.
March 22 – Nick Bailey, the police officer injured in the attack, is released from hospital.
March 26 – The United States and 22 other countries join Britain in expelling scores of Russian spies from capitals across the globe.
March 29 – Doctors say Yulia Skripal is ‘improving rapidly’ in hospital.
‘Unknown time in the spring’  – Dutch authorities expelled two suspected Russian spies who tried to hack into a Swiss laboratory
April 3 – The chief of the Porton Down defence laboratory said it could not verify the ‘precise source’ of the nerve agent.
April 5, morning – Yulia Skripal’s cousin Viktoria says she has received a call from Yulia saying she plans to leave hospital soon.

April 5, afternoon – A statement on behalf of Yulia is released by Metropolitan Police, in which she says her strength is ‘growing daily’ and that ‘daddy is fine’.
April 9 – Ms Skripal is released from hospital and moved to a secure location.
May 18 – Sergei Skripal is released from hospital 11 weeks after he was poisoned.
June 30 – Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley fall ill at a property in Amesbury, which is eight miles from Salisbury, and are rushed to hospital.
July 4 – Police declare a major incident after Ms Sturgess and Mr Rowley are exposed to an ‘unknown substance’, later revealed to be Novichok.
July 5 – Sajid Javid demands an explanation over the two poisonings as he accuses the Russian state of using Britain as a ‘dumping ground for poison’.
July 8 – Mother-of-three Dawn Sturgess, 44, dies in hospital due to coming into contact with Novichok.
July 10 – Mr Rowley regains consciousness at hospital, and later tells his brother that Dawn had sprayed the Novichok onto her wrists.
July 19 – Police are believed to have identified the perpetrators of the attack.
August 20 –  Charlie Rowley is rushed to hospital as he starts to lose his site, but doctors can’t confirm whether it has anything to do with the poisoning.
August 26 – Charlie Rowley admitted to intensive care unit with meningitis
August 28  – Police call in the ‘super recognisers’  in bid to track down the poisoners
September 4 –  Charlie Rowley’s brother says he has ‘lost all hope’ and doesn’t have long to live.
Independent investigators, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, confirm the toxic chemical that killed Ms Sturgess was the same nerve agent as that which poisoned the Skripals.
September 5 – Scotland Yard and CPS announce enough evidence to charge Russian nationals Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov for conspiracy to murder over Salisbury nerve agent attack.
September 13 – Britain’s most wanted men speak to RT and claim to be humble tourists
September 26 – The real identity of one of the two assassins, named by police as Ruslan Boshirov, is reported to be Colonel Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga.

A third suspect has been identified in the Novichok poisonings of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, according to reports.
Investigators believe another Russian military intelligence officer visited the city on a reconnaissance mission prior to the attack in March, the Telegraph reported.

The spotter would have travelled alone to assess the location before Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov brought toxic nerve agent Novichok into the UK in a perfume bottle.
They are suspected of poisoning Russian defector Skripal and his daughter Yulia by smearing Novichok on his front door before heading back to Moscow.

The Skripals both survived, but local woman Dawn Sturgess died after her partner Charlie Rowley found the perfume bottle used to dispense the poison.
It is believed that security chiefs have identified the new suspect who came to Salisbury to scope out the intended target.
Skripal suspect ‘true identity’ revealed as decorated Russian colonel
Philip Ingram, a former intelligence and security officer, told The Telegraph: “There was almost certainly intelligence on the ground before the attack was carried out, it is what is called a pattern of life study.
“They wouldn’t have turned up at the house and put it on the door handle on a whim.”
It follows reports that security services are investigating four other suspects believed to be linked to the attack – and analysis from a former Russian spy who said kill teams would tend to operate in teams of six.

Ex-spy Boris Karpichkov, 59, told the Mirror that eavesdroppers from Russian spy agency the FSB would have monitored Yulia Skripal’s mobile, email, internet and Skype before she travelled to the UK to meet her father.
The team would have formed a  “Special Operations Group”, or SOG, and cloned the passports of prisoners in other EU states to travel without visas – and some members may still be laying low following the attack.
Suspect Ruslan Boshirov has recently been identified by the investigative journalism bureau Bellingcat as a decorated GRU Colonel, Anatoliy Chepiga – despite repeated claims from Kremlin that his picture “means nothing to us”.

Chepiga, 39, served in wars in Chechnya and Ukraine. He was made a Hero of the Russian Federation by decree of President Vladimir Putin in 2014.
Prime Minister Theresa May damned Russia for the attack at an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday.
She said: “We have taken appropriate action, with our allies, and we will continue to take the necessary steps to ensure our collective security.

“Russia has only sought to obfuscate through desperate fabrication.”
Moscow continues to deny claims of involvement, as officials called out Mrs May for refusing to present her evidence to them.
The country’s Ambassador to London, Alexander Yakovenko, tweeted yesterday, quoting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: “London arrogantly demands that we take responsibility for the crime just because they have some “evidence” no one has ever seen and they would not present it to the public. Frankly speaking, this is just childish.
“London violates at least three or four treaties and refuses to answer any questions. As for me, it is a clear sign of guilty conscience.”

The Russian embassy said in a statement: “The UK is refusing to provide the Russian investigation with any information or evidence gathered by British Police when working on the Salisbury incident.
“British authorities (earlier) announced that they did not intend to pursue extradition of the “suspects” and made it clear that they were not interested in submitting their own requests for legal assistance, which could be provided by means of interrogation of certain persons, provision of access to documents, etc.”
A Home Office spokeswoman said: “We set out our position clearly this month. The Police and CPS have identified two men as the prime suspects in the attack in Salisbury. We have repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury in March, and they have replied with obfuscation and lies.
“We want these men to face justice in the UK and have taken steps to ensure that if they ever leave Russia in the future they can be arrested, detained and brought to the UK.”

Russian secret services were today accused of influencing staff inside the British embassy to secure visas for the two men they sent to kill Sergei Skripal with novichok.
Investigators say they have evidence the Kremlin ‘manipulated people’ working for the UK’s consulate in Moscow to ensure their assassins were handed UK business visas for their Salisbury murder mission.
Roman Dobrokhotov, one of those working for Bellingcat, said today that even basic searches show the men masquerading as sport nutritionists have ‘no business history’ in Russia.
He said: ‘Our theory is that Russian security services obtained some access to the British embassy.
‘It’s not just manipulation in that they changed their documents somewhere, it is direct influence that Russian security services had on those people who were participating in this scheme of making visas.’

Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov entered Britain unchallenged in March carrying enough novichok to kill 4,000 people in a perfume bottle before fleeing the country 55 hours later having smeared it on Skripal’s front door.
Last night suspect Boshirov was outed as Anatoly Chepiga, a colonel in Putin’s feared special forces army who the President personally made a ‘Hero of Russia’ for missions in Chechnya and Ukraine.
The Kremlin said today it was looking into the reports. ‘Many people look alike, but I cannot tell you who this citizen who was pointed out in this investigation is,’ spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
Residents of Chepiga’s home town in Russia’s far east have since told Russian media they suspected he worked for the secret services because not even his family were told where he was posted.

Petrov is believed to be a GRU Army captain travelling under his first name but on an alias surname and passport handed to him by Kremlin spymasters two years ago.
Mr Dobrokhotov said of Chepiga: ‘He went to Britain with a business visa and that is very difficult to make.
‘You have to have a lot of papers proving that you really have business and he didn’t have any business.
‘Our theory is that Russian security services obtained some access to the British embassy and the next part of our investigation will be directed at this topic; how Russian security services managed to manipulate the British embassy to make their agents get to British ground.’
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We reject these claims entirely. Applications of this type would be decided by a visa officer in the UK and not in the British Embassy in Moscow.’

UPDATE: The Kommersant Evidence
Kommersant publishes interviews with people from Chepiga’s home village. The article makes clear he has not been seen there for many years. It states that opinions differ on whether Chepiga is Boshirov. One woman says she recognised Boshirov as Chepiga when he appeared on TV, especially the dark eyes, though she had not seen him since school. Another woman states it is not Chepiga as when she last saw him ten years ago he was already pretty bald, and he has a more open face, although the eyes are similarly brown.
Naturally mainstream media journalists are tweeting and publishing the man’s evidence and leaving out the woman’s evidence.
But the Kommersant article gives them a bigger challenge. Kommersant is owned by close Putin political ally, Putin’s former student flatmate, Chariman of Gazprominvestholdings and the UK’s richest resident, Alisher Usmanov. That Russia’s most authoritative paper, with ownership very close to Putin, is printing such open and honest reporting rather belies the “Russia is a dictatorship” narrative. And unlike the Guardian and BBC websites, on Kommersant website ordinary Russians can post freely their views on the case, and are.
One thing this does stand up is that Chepiga definitely exists.
The evidence mounts that Russia is not telling the truth about “Boshirov” and “Petrov”. If those were real identities, they would have been substantiated in depth by now. As we know of Yulia Skripal’s boyfriend, cat, cousin and grandmother, real depth on the lives and milieu of “Boshirov” and “Petrov” would be got out. It is plainly in the interests of Russia’s state and its oligarchy to establish that they truly exist, and concern for the privacy of individuals would be outweighed by that. The rights of the individual are not prioritised over the state interest in Russia.
But equally the identification of “Boshirov” with “Colonel Chepiga” is a nonsense.
The problem is with Bellingcat’s methodology. They did not start with any prior intelligence that “Chepiga” is “Boshirov”. They rather allegedly searched databases of GRU operatives of about the right age, then trawled photos in yearbooks of them until they found one that looked a bit like “Boshirov”. And guess what? It looks a bit like “Boshirov”. If you ignore the substantially different skull shape and nose.

Only the picture on the left is Chepiga. The two on the right are from “Boshirov’s” Russian passport application file, and the photo of “Boshirov” issued by Scotland Yard.
Like almost the entire internet, I assumed both black and white photos were from Chepiga’s files, and was willing to admit the identification of Chepiga with “Boshirov” as valid. But once you understand is that – as Bellingcat confirm if you read it closely – only the photo on the left is Chepiga, you start to ask questions.
The two guys on the right and the centre are undoubtedly the same person. But is the guy on the left the same, but younger?
<a href=”http://Betaface.com” rel=”nofollow”>Betaface.com</a>, which runs industry standard software, gives the faces an 83% similarity, putting the probability of them being the same person at 2.8%.
By comparison it gives me a 72% identity with Chepiga and a 2.1% chance of being him.


There is a superficial resemblance. But if you take the standard ratios used for facial recognition, you get a very different story. If you draw a line between the centre of the pupils of the two guys centre and right, and then take a perpendicular from that line to the tip of the nose, you get a key ratio. The two on the right both have a ratio of 100:75, which is unsurprising since they are the same person. The one on the left has a ratio of 100:68, which is very different.
To put that more simply, his nose is much shorter, and less certainly his eyes are further apart.
It is possible this could happen in photos but it still be the same person. The head would have to be tilted backward or forward at quite a sharp angle to alter these ratios, which does not seem to be the case. The camera could be positioned substantially above or below the subject, again not apparently the case. And the photo could be resized with height and width ratios changed. That would hard to detect.
But the three white dots across the bottom of the nose are particularly compelling (the middle one largely obscured by a red dot in the Chepiga photo). They illustrate that Chepiga has a snub nose and Boshirov something of a hook. Again, the software is reinforcing what they eye can plainly see.
However, there are also other ratios that are different. Chepiga has a narrower mouth compared to the distance between the pupils than the two photos of “Boshirov”, and that is measured on the same plane. The difference is 100-80 compared to 100-88. It is a ratio that can be changed by facial expression, but this does not seem to be the case here.
Professor Dame Sue Black of the University of Dundee is the world’s leading expert in facial forensic reconstruction. I once spent a fascinating lunch sitting next to her, while I was Rector. I shall contact her for her view on whether the guy on the left is the same person, and if she is kind enough to give me an opinion, I shall pass it on to you unadulterated.
This website is less definitive, but gives a nice clear result, and you can repeat it yourself without having to subscribe (unlike <a href=”http://Betaface.com” rel=”nofollow”>Betaface.com</a>).

Again for comparison, I tried two photos of myself 12 years apart and got “from nearly the same person”.
It is worth repeating that the only evidence that Chepiga is Boshirov offered by Bellingcat is this photo. The rest of their article simply attempts to establish Chepiga’s career.
This is gross hypocrisy by Bellingcat, who have argued that scores of photos of White Helmets being Jihadi fighters are not valid evidence because you cannot safely recognise faces from photographs.

Yet Higgins now claims his facial identification of Chepiga as Boshirov as “definitive” and “conclusive”, despite the absence of moles, scars and blemishes. Higgins stands exposed as a quite disgusting hypocrite. Let me go further. I do not believe that Higgins did not take the elementary step of running facial recognition technology over the photos, and I believe he is hiding the results from you. Is it not also astonishing that the mainstream media have not done this simple test?
The bulk of the Bellingcat article is just trying to prove the reality of the existence of Chepiga. This is hard to evaluate, but as the evidence to link him to “Boshirov” is non-existent, is a different argument. Having set out to find a GRU officer of the same age who looks a bit like “Boshirov”, they trumpet repeatedly the fact that Chepiga is about the same age as evidence, in a crass display of circular argument.
This unofficial website does indeed name Chepiga as a Hero of the Russian Federation and recipient of 20 awards, as Bellingcat claims. But it is impossible to know if it is authentic, and by contrast there is no Chepiga on the official list of Heroes of the Russian Federation, for the stated 2014 or for any other year, which Bellingcat fail to mention. Their other documents and anonymous sources are unverifiable.
The photo of the military school honours arch, with Chepiga added right at the end and not quite in line, looks to me very suspect. My surmise so far would be that most likely Bellingcat’s source of supply is Ukrainian, and trying to tie the Skripal affair into the Ukrainian civil war via Chepiga.
My view of the most likely explanation on presently available evidence is this:
Boshirov is not Boshirov, and the Russian Government are lying.
Boshirov is not Chepiga, and Bellingcat are lying.
The whole Skripal novichok story still does not hang together, and the British government are lying.
I will continue to form my opinions as further evidence becomes available.
UPDATE Incredibly, at 13.15 on 27 September the BBC TV News ran the story showing only the two photos of “Boshirov”, which of course are the same person, and not showing the photo of Chepiga at all!

The podium was top-notch in October 2012, shortly before the elections in Ukraine – with former EU Commission President, former Polish President and MEP and former Austrian Chancellor. Romano Prodi, Aleksander Kwasniewski and Alfred Gusenbauer discussed in Berlin about “Ukraine and the EU: elections, integration and economic problems”. The event was initiated by the European Center for Modern Ukraine (ECMU) based in Brussels.
That this think tank is actually set up at the behest of the Ukrainian government by Viktor Yanukovich, which is not apparent. Nor that the three gentlemen on the podium were actually paid to make a political mood, namely for a rapprochement between Ukraine and the EU. They were part of the so-called Hapsburg Group and toured Europe with this message between 2012 and 2014. Yanukovych is open.

Gusenbauer thought he had received his fee from a US company, he told the BBC in February , when the charges first came up. This company in turn was commissioned by Paul Manafort, later campaign manager Donald Trumps. This is now documented in Manafort’s confession to special investigator Robert Mueller last week. It leaves no doubt that the Hapsburg Group existed and its activities were financed by the Yanukovych regime – with or without the knowledge of those involved.

“Independent experts”

Manafort founded it in 2012 with the aim of “gathering a small group of high-profile, influential European leaders and politically credible friends who can act informally and without any visible relationship with the Ukrainian government.” Secrecy was part of the plan: the “independent experts” would speak for Yanukovych, and talk down the proceedings surrounding the incarcerated Yulia Timoshenko. In the end, the work was unsuccessful – the approach failed, Yanukovich was overthrown after protests at the Maidan in 2014.
Altogether should be flowed between Manafort and Yanukovich 60 million euros, by black money and money laundering. Manafort paid two million euros to the Hapsburg Group in 2012 and 2014 through at least four offshore accounts. In order to circumvent the European tax, it was “wrongly stated in the contract with the Hapsburg Group that their activities would not take place in Europe,” states the confession.
Gusenbauer received 30,000 euros per month, Bloomberg reported in June , when an unredigated memo from Mueller was online for a few hours. According to a 2012 Manafort employee reported: “Alfred Gusenbauer is ready to be discreet.” On the phone he had the idea to comment “from the underground”. Gusenbauer said he had made speeches in the conviction that he would approximate Ukraine to the EU. He did not question the origin of the money. He assured the platform Addendum to have his fee taxed in Austria. (Anna Sawerthal, 21.9.2018)

Paul Manafort was the innocent victim of a conspiracy – as US President Donald Trump had been emphasized. Manafort himself wants to be much more difficult for the US president, because on Friday someone voiced his reproaches, who must know. He pleaded guilty to a court in Washington, DC.
From Trump’s point of view, probably even worse: his former shop steward has concluded a deal with Russia’s special investigator Robert Mueller. The deal is about informant activity, the transfer of documents and statements.
Trump’s defense team seems to have been surprised by the cooperation with Mueller. Just before the court hearing, Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, “The president has done nothing wrong and Paul Manafort wants to tell the truth.” A little later, the cooperation agreement was announced, whereupon Giuliani sent a new statement. “The President has done nothing wrong,” is only read in it – without reference to Manafort.

A maximum of ten years in prison

Only a few hours earlier it had even become known that the former lobbyist had reached an agreement with Mueller. According to this, Manafort, who led the election campaign of Donald Trump from June to August 2016, wanted to admit that he was guilty of conspiracy against the US (a broadly based indictment that may include tax evasion and money laundering). He also admitted that he had obstructed the judiciary through several attempts to influence the witnesses. US media speculated on Friday evening, Manafort had already made before the court hearing first testimony against Mueller to prove that he could offer the investigators something. The deal includes a point that prosecutors can use less punishment if they “are convinced that
Im Gegenzug zum Schuldeingeständnis gaben Mueller und sein Team dem 69-jährigen Manafort bereits jetzt Garantien hinsichtlich der Länge seiner Haft. Der frühere Lobbyist, der in einem von zwei Steuerhinterziehungsprozessen bereits schuldiggesprochen ist, soll nun zu nicht mehr als zehn Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt werden können. Theoretisch hätten die Anklagepunkte eine deutlich längere Haft möglich gemacht.

“Hapsburg Group”

Die Anklage gegen Manafort steht mit seiner Arbeit für Trump nicht unmittelbar in Zusammenhang. Das Team rund um Mueller war allerdings bei seinen Nachforschungen zu einer möglichen Zusammenarbeit der Trump-Kampagne mit Russland auf die Lobbying-Aktivitäten Manaforts für den früheren prorussischen Präsidenten der Ukraine, Wiktor Janukowitsch, gestoßen. Manafort hatte laut der Anklage mehrere Millionen Dollar aus diesen Einkünften nicht ordnungsgemäß versteuert und sich auch der Geldwäsche für seine Auftraggeber schuldig gemacht. Zudem hatte er sich nicht – so wie vorgeschrieben – als Auslandslobbyist registriert.
In the present “Information” – the text of the indictment, whose contents Manafort by confession referred to as true – is again from the “Hapsburg Group” the speech. It is the lobby group of European politicians, speculated by the US media, even Austria’s ex-chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer heard her. This denies.

There have been two procedures against Manafort, which are now to be merged. In the first of the two, he was already partially convicted in the jury in August, he himself had denied all allegations. Trump had then praised Manafort via Twitter because he was “under pressure” from the investigators “broken” or cooperate. He can not say that anymore either. (Manuel Escher, 14.9.2018)

J.B. Morris leads Rock Hill United Methodist Church

According to the ‘Deutschlandtrend’ survey published by German broadcaster ARD, the SPD would take 17 percent of the vote, putting them third.
The Christian Democrats and its sister party the Christian Social Union (CDU and CSU) would achieve 28 percent of the vote – their worst result since the ‘Deutschlandtrend’ poll started in 1997.
Meanwhile, 9 percent of respondents of the survey would vote for the FDP, while the Left would receive 10 percent of the vote and the Greens 15 percent.
Overall, the coalition government of Union and SPD would receive 45 percent of the vote – meaning that a grand coalition majority government would not be possible.
Compared to the previous ‘Deutschlandtrend’ poll on September 6th, the Union and the SPD lose one percentage point each, the AfD increases by two percentage points, while the Greens and FDP each increase by one. The proportion of the Left has remained the same.
Union dip
The Union’s popularity dip comes against a backdrop of unsettled weeks, including unrest in Chemnitzinvolving xenophobic protests rallies after the death of a German man, allegedly by asylum seekers.
The case of Hans-Georg Maaßen, who led Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, but was pushed out of the job and given another role in the Interior Ministry has also been major news in Germany, and attracted fierce criticism from the media.
Maaßen had questioned the authenticity of footage in Chemnitz, saying there was no proof that “hunting down of foreigners” had taken place, contradicting Chancellor Angela Merkel who had condemned the behaviour.
Support dwindling
Meanwhile, Federal Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU), appears to have been harmed by his involvement in the dispute over Maaßen. Only 28 per cent of respondents said they considered him as a good Interior Minister, down from 39 percent in April.
At the same time, the support for the 69-year-old is also dwindling considerably among Union supporters. Only 31 percent said they were still satisfied with his work, compared to 45 percent in April this year.
SEE ALSO: In depth – Is the AfD becoming too extreme?
The supporters of all other parties are mostly critical of the current leadership of the Interior Ministry. But Seehofer scored significant points among the supporters of the AfD. The poll found 61 percent of them were behind him, largely due to his stricter stance on migration, including not allowing refugees already registered in another EU country to enter Germany.
For the survey, Infratest Dimap polled 1,035 voters Monday through Wednesday and asked respondents to answer the questions as if Bundestag elections were taking place Sunday.
Strong approval for social housing
Almost half of eligible voters (46 percent) believe that more money for social housing is the most effective public measure to ease the situation on the rental market.
Every fourth citizen (26 percent) believes in the effectiveness of the rental price brake (rent control), while 13 percent of respondents said a stronger promotion of private housing would be useful.
A total of eight percent said direct financial support to tenants through housing allowance would be an effective measure against accommodation shortages.

While she had been counting on the German political scene since the fall of Hitler , the far right had repointed the nose with Pegida. But this Sunday, it is something else: the extremist ideas are now embodied by a political party, the AfD – Alternative for Germany – which reaches, in three regional polls, stratospheric scores for a party that did not exist three years ago! Clearly, the refugee crisis and the rejection of Angela Merkel’s policies in this regard fueled this rise.
“We are not racist and will not become racist,” proclaimed yesterday his vice president. Nonsense! The Alternative for Germany is recognized by the experts of the genus as a brother of the National Front, at its head, a young woman with a very effective charisma. Against the migrants, against the policy of Merkel, but also against Islam, Europe, the press, the “system”, the new president who claims above all the “non-politically correct”, has an extreme vision of the concept She did not it was also good for women and children. 
For Germany and Angela Merkel, the danger is urgent: in 2017, it is in the Federal Parliament, that the AfD could make its entry.This would be the first time that the Bundestag since the Nazis . This is to say if this is not a good time to be in the back to a Europe where only Germany and Belgium were still an exception.

[…]
However, they have no substantive solution, nothing credible in the long term, to propose. On the contrary, they give rise to confrontations, aggression, and row fights – see the effect of the outrages of a Trump. We will break the Muslim, the Mexican, the Black? Are we going to rape refugees who do not get up fast enough to return to Turkey? That’s the other branch of the alternative?
It is a dark race against time that is engaged between democratic solutions difficult to develop (Europe has a crucial meeting this week) and hatreds unleashed by populist or extremist leaders who are in the verbal bidding and warm crowds, legitimately worried but should be reassured.
Keep calm, push for democratic solutions: these two “duties”, adds a third now – the fight against the return of the old European demons . It is urgent again to remember: “never again”.
(Beatrice Delvaux, chief editorialist) 
Le Soir