The UK has publicly said it is looking for “transparency” in the Skripal investigation. Currently this seems no more true than any other part of the UK’s narrative. In fact the opposite would seem to be the case. The situation with the Skripals in regard to Salisbury NHS Trust hopsital is particularly opaque as things stand.Just to quickly recap.The March 22 High Court judgment by Mr Justice Williams makes it clear the UK govt lawyers were trying to minimise or even deny the existence of the Skripals’ Russian relatives , claiming there was very little evidence there even were any such relatives, even after Sergey’s niece Viktoria had been interviewed by UK media outlets, and using this fabricated “lack of evidence” as a reason for not contacting the relatives or involving them in considerations of Yulia Skripals’ welfare.The Russian embassy has repeatedly said it is being illegally denied access to the Skripals, and there is evidence the pair have been denied due process There are claims Yulia’s Russian cellphone has been disconnected or denied service. The alleged phone call (on a “ temporary phone ”) from Yulia to her cousin Viktoria on April 4, if genuine, implies this reluctance to involve the relatives may be extending into discouraging or even denying Yulia access to her family in Russia.The alleged statement issued by the Metropolitan Police on Yulia’s “behalf” only hours after the details of the above phone call were published has puzzled some people. It is quite generic and broadly similar in terms of sentiment (thanks to hospital and people of Salisbury, request for privacy etc) to the statement allegedly made by DS Bailey after his alleged recovery in late March.Did Yulia contribute to that statement?Does it reflect her real feelings or opinions? Why can’t we hear her own words?The UK is apparently using questionable means to ensure the results of the OPCW investigation can remain secret. It has said it does not want them publicised and does not want them shared with Russia. Exactly what form of “transparency” does this represent?Slipping down the Memory Hole is the still apparently unresolved question of consultant physician Mr Stephen Davies’ letter to the Times of March 16 , and what he meant by the words “no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning in Salisbury.” If Mr Davies has clarified his meaning, we have not heard about it, which leaves open the possibility that a senior doctor involved in treating the Skripals is of the opinion they were not poisoned by a nerve agent.Major questions would seem to be:How is Yulia being kept? Is she free to contact anyone she chooses? What information is she being given about her poisoning, and by whom?Can the nature of what happened to the Skripals be established objectively (ie were they in fact poisoned by a nerve agent pr did something else befall them?)Is the UK about to allege or imply Yulia does not want to contact her own government? If they take this step what happens next?