Loading Notifications...

No comment on the Russian interference report?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

Watched some of the press conference this morning. Seemed fairly scathing.

Now I'm wondering what other story is being hidden, if they've allowed this report to be published...

4
 HansStuttgart 21 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Now I'm wondering what other story is being hidden, if they've allowed this report to be published...

"As always, buy your tickets for the bigger jackpot, the next missing piece of the jigsaw, the just-around-the-corner key to all mythologies."

- Marina Hyde

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/21/russia-report-revelation-britain-state-whitewash

 yeti 21 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

I'm baffled, why would anyone interfere with the Scottish independence vote? except mebbe a Scot

 RatKing 21 Jul 2020
In reply to yeti:

Supporting contradictory forces is a classic play from the textbook of non linear warefare

They do it in the US where they setup *some* BLM protests and then setup counter protests, all on facebook unsurprisingly

 steve_gibbs 21 Jul 2020
In reply to yeti:

Simply to break up the U.K. and weaken NATO, chiefly to jeopardise Trident. Divide and conquer. It’s the oldest trick in the book!

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 21 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

Just picking my jaw off the floor that of the last 3 Prime Ministers not one of them wanted to investigate foreign interference in our democracy, even after proof of Russian interference in other G7 nations, before remembering that the Russians are funding their party to the tune of millions and millions of pounds.

In the olden days a government would fall on the back of this. This one will lie about being vindicated, the papers and their die-hard supporters will assist and everyone will move on.

1
 George Ormerod 21 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

Here's a good view from outside the UK:  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/world/europe/uk-russia-report-brexit-interference.html

In a fully functioning democracy there would be a wide ranging and independent report into Russian interference covering all elections and referendums, and how to prevent it in the future.  As it is it seems, at best, successive governments didn't want to want to go there with the question on interference in case they didn't like the likely answer; especially on the issue of Brexit. 

Even if no one was complicit, like say a foreign secretary ditching their security to attend a party of an ex-KGB agent / Russian Oligarch (to pick something entirely at random) this is an act of criminal irresponsibility.  

2
 The Lemming 21 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

Seems like the best request for a budget increase ever drafted by a department.

1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> In the olden days a government would fall on the back of this

Sadly, lying and incompetence is just brushed off these days. It's got so had that the BBC have to 'fact check' anything our lying PM says. Not that he's any worse than the rest of his cabinet.

5
 MargieB 21 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

The comment should come from Labour and the Lib Dems working together on this one. Failure of one party can be counterpoised by demands from other parties, it is how democracies work.

A good deal with EU would counterpoise a lot of problems. It would take the heat out of division  that is easily exploited. It would remove the fuel of division.

Post edited at 22:38
1
In reply to MargieB:

> The comment should come from Labour and the Lib Dems working together on this one. Failure of one party can be counterpoised by demands from other parties, it is how democracies work.

> A good deal with EU would counterpoise a lot of problems. It would take the heat out of division  that is easily exploited. It would remove the fuel of division.

Like that good deal Cameron negotiated? Top

In reply to captain paranoia:

Seen the review of Pompeo's latest gig?... Predictably, it was largely attended by Tory MPs.

The WHO are the enemy, apparently... Strange times:

Mike Pompeo attacks WHO in private meeting during UK visit

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/21/mike-pompeo-attacks-who-in-private-meeting-during-uk-visit

1
In reply to captain paranoia:

From the party of Strong and Stable? Surely not?

BBC News - Russia report: UK 'badly underestimated' threat, says committee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53484344

1
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Now I'm wondering what other story is being hidden, if they've allowed this report to be published...

They've done it to drown out criticism from yesterdays vote where Conservative MP's handed the NHS over to the USA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/full-list-of-mps-who-voted-against-the-nhs-being-protected-from-foreign-control-in-brexit-trade-deals/21/07/%3famp

2
 neilh 22 Jul 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Upto a point yes.But the Salisbury/ Skertal posioning did at the time change May's perspective on the Russians and there was alot more focus on what was going on. From what I recalll new residency procedures were considerably tightened up and Unexplained Wealth Orders brought in. Certainly Abramovich moved to Israel as there was a huge dispute about renewing his residency.( from what I remember it was declined)

In a way I was disappponted by the report becuase it failed to highlight what has happened since Salisbury. That was the real kick up the backside to the intelligence and political system.

In my view we were asleep at the wheel until Salisbury, that really changed the political landscape with Russia.It ceratinly woke May up on the issue at the time.

And remember we had people like Salmond who were presenters on RT.

 ianstevens 22 Jul 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Just picking my jaw off the floor that of the last 3 Prime Ministers not one of them wanted to investigate foreign interference in our democracy, even after proof of Russian interference in other G7 nations, before remembering that the Russians are funding their party to the tune of millions and millions of pounds.

> In the olden days a government would fall on the back of this. This one will lie about being vindicated, the papers and their die-hard supporters will assist and everyone will move on.

If only we had a functional opposition 

1
 MargieB 22 Jul 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

Circumstances have changed since Cameron, May and European Research Group ascendancy {no deal advocates}. Covid 19 has radically changed the circumstances of negotiation with recessions for both negotiating parties. Ironically, we may see Boris tacking in the direction of the sort of compromise deal May/Corbyn started to negotiate. 

The time for a referendum on the deal versus staying in EU passed a while back 

All democracies have phases of  disunity of varying degrees- it is the nature of a multiplicity of opinions which we encourage. Sometimes those divisions are very marked. It should not be exploited by any third party.

Post edited at 10:05
 MargieB 22 Jul 2020
In reply to ianstevens:

I'll be interested to see what the opposition parties can achieve on this. I'm not sure if a completely cynical view on that is justified as yet.

 ianstevens 22 Jul 2020
In reply to MargieB:

> I'll be interested to see what the opposition parties can achieve on this. I'm not sure if a completely cynical view on that is justified as yet.

The report was released yesterday. They should have been shouting from the rooftops. Where they? 

 wercat 22 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

What can I say - It is simply confirmation in an official report of what I have been saying and thinking for a quite a few years.  I despair that there is no need to investigate corruption of our democracy and that the traitors are accomplishing Putins's purposes for him at our nation and the EU's expense.

I have evidence of people being influenced by lies on social media in the Brexit vote just from my wife's circle of acquantances - people who said repeatedly they did not know how to vote and who close to the vote were persuated to vote leave because of stories on Facebook that had something to do with their circle of contacts, EU immigrants taking ex servicemen's housing, EU people committing bad crimes etc.

I do wish Cummings dead and in Hell or worse

Post edited at 10:55
3
 dread-i 22 Jul 2020
In reply to Darren Jackson:

>BBC News - Russia report: UK 'badly underestimated' threat, says committee

You see, 'threat' is such a loaded word.

In IT the phrase, 'its not a bug, but a feature' is often used. If the Russians and 'the people' want the same thing, then it's not a 'threat', more of a helping hand. It just saves money on spin doctors and others of a similar ilk.

These campaigns of influence, were well known about long before brexit. It would be arrogance to assume that we, in the UK, were not targets and that we're too smart to have been affected by such things.

Post edited at 10:55
 wercat 22 Jul 2020
In reply to dread-i:

not necessarily arrogance and not necessarily making an assumption, EXCEPT an assumption by people who are paid to serve the nation of their natural right to do whatever it takes to accomplish their own filthy selfseeking ends and those of their associates

We need a revolt with firing squads, or at least a Centrist coup d'etat.

The Democracy I grew up with is dead

Post edited at 11:11
3
In reply to wercat:

I'll settle for the Centrist Coup d'Etat

In reply to dread-i:

> These campaigns of influence, were well known about long before brexit. It would be arrogance to assume that we, in the UK, were not targets and that we're too smart to have been affected by such things.

Chucking buckets of Novichok about on the streets of Salisbury goes some way beyond being considered a 'campaign of influence' IMHO... If that doesn't represent a threat, then I don't know what does.

 DizzyVizion 22 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

The UK does it to others. It's like the bully complaining about being bullied by a bigger bully. There's no moral high ground here. Next!

7
 neilh 22 Jul 2020
In reply to Darren Jackson:

That is where this report falls down  as it does not comment on the postion after Salisbury. Remember we turfed out lots of Russian diplomats, the biggest expulsion for over 30  years.

IMHO the report is useless as it does not  bring this into context because of some of the actions since then.

Post edited at 11:52
2
 jkarran 22 Jul 2020
In reply to yeti:

> I'm baffled, why would anyone interfere with the Scottish independence vote? except mebbe a Scot

Really? Because a disintegrating UK turns inward for a decade at least, it weakens NATO, it distracts, it draws us back from the corners of the world where we still exert influence, it impoverishes us reducing our future capability and makes influence/power easier to buy. What's not to like from a rival power's perspective?

jk

In reply to DizzyVizion:

> It's like the bully complaining about being bullied by a bigger bully. 

That's not what the report criticises.

It criticises the fact that we weren't taking steps to prevent or mitigate against it.

Post edited at 12:20
 dread-i 22 Jul 2020
In reply to wercat:

>not necessarily arrogance and not necessarily making an assumption, EXCEPT an assumption by people who are paid to serve the nation of their natural right to do whatever it takes to accomplish their own filthy selfseeking ends and those of their associates

Talking of arrogance and filthy self seeking ends, by those paid to serve the nation.

That bastion of integrity the disgraced MP Grant 'spam boy' Schapps, said:

"He told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: “We know that these bots exist. I think the British people were more intelligent than to fall for, sort of, social media...” 

Unfortunately for Shapps (and his faith in the British public), researchers believe he is wrong."

Shapps, under this alias Mike Green, ran a web marketing company. So he would know a thing or two about how smart the British public are. After all, he claimed to be able to out smart googles page rank system. He could use web marketing to influence people but the Ruskies, with almost a century of propaganda experience and unlimited resources, failed.

It's either that, or he's lying. Lying about his marketing prowess. Lying to parliament. And telling porkies on R4 (which is unforgivable.)

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/grant-shapps-russia-report-bots_uk_5f17fdfcc5b6128e681e9ad4

 dread-i 22 Jul 2020
In reply to Darren Jackson:

>Chucking buckets of Novichok about on the streets of Salisbury goes some way beyond being considered a 'campaign of influence' IMHO... If that doesn't represent a threat, then I don't know what does.

I wonder if we'd been more proactive in our response to disinformation, things might have been different. If we were seen as being weak, then perhaps they felt emboldened to take other actions.

 George Ormerod 22 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> And remember we had people like Salmond who were presenters on RT.

The report identifies RT as a vehicle for channeling money to pundits that favour it's purposes.  It has a tiny number of viewers, I heard a quote of 1300 at some points in time.

 Tyler 22 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Up to a point yes.But the Salisbury/ Skertal posioning did at the time change May's perspective on the Russians and there was alot more focus on what was going on. From what I recalll new residency procedures were considerably tightened up and Unexplained Wealth Orders brought in.

Does this mean the Tory party is no longer accepting 6 figure donations from Russians with Unexplained Wealth (more shady than unexplained really, we know most only got and kept their wealth because of the largess of Putin to whom they all owe favours).

 elsewhere 22 Jul 2020
In reply to Tyler:

> Does this mean the Tory party is no longer accepting 6 figure donations from Russians with Unexplained Wealth (more shady than unexplained really, we know most only got and kept their wealth because of the largess of Putin to whom they all owe favours).

I don't think there is such a thing as a rich Russian who is not a friend on Putin. Those who aren't his friends are in exile or in prison.

 neilh 22 Jul 2020
In reply to Tyler:

No idea. Ask them I did not vote for them.But based on my limited knowledge of Russia from when I did business there until 2013 you should not assume all wealthy Russians are Putin cronies. Only super rich.There are a number of exiled wealthy Russians in the Uk who fear for their lives if they go back.

Strange lot with a big restless chip on their shoulders. Such a shame that after 2013 it started to go pear shaped.

I had a party of 14 visit my business once, the top guy b~~~~d off after a couple of hours to go and watch Arsenal and have a London break. He told me in his home town ( which he effectively controlled) he had just built at his own expense a memorial to the fallen from WW2 ( it was huge). Then he swanned off to look at some Mclarens.I took him to a pub next to Jodrell bank and we joked about Sputnik( he loved  the pub).Often wondered what he is doing now.

Post edited at 16:42
1
 wercat 22 Jul 2020
In reply to dread-i:

He is THE ONE who on R4 made my jaw drop when he told us on Today that Britain was COVID  testing more people than any country in the world except for Italy and China!

The enormity of the lies of these charlatans, including the security breaching and expense stealing Liam Fox keeps me in a state I'd rather not be in.  I really am (from a pretty od fashioned background) ready to see these people in a tumbrel

1
 Tyler 22 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> No idea. Ask them I did not vote for them.But based on my limited knowledge of Russia from when I did business there until 2013 you should not assume all wealthy Russians are Putin cronies. Only super rich.There are a number of exiled wealthy Russians in the Uk who fear for their lives if they go back.

I'm sure it is just pedantry and not an attempt to distract that caused you to point out not all Russian oligarchs are (still) friends of Putin. However, it can't have escaped your notice that all of the oligarchs (that we know of) who have been donating to the Tory party are friends of Putin. I'm happy for you to point to those opponents of Putin who are handing over, for instance, £1.7million to try and convince Johnson to stand up to Russian meddling but at the moment it looks as though people who owe their original and continuing wealth to the de facto dictator of a hostile foreign power are buying influence with the govt for reasons we do not know. It also looks as though the same govt have used every trick in the book to prevent us finding out the extent of this influence, as well s deliberately and repeatedly turning a blind eye to meddling in our elections. 

Given the above and Johnsons complete lack of contrition at PMQs your original assertion that Sailsbury "really changed the political landscape with Russia" looks even more laughable than when I first read it.

Post edited at 21:57
1
In reply to Tyler:

> However, it can't have escaped your notice that all of the oligarchs (that we know of) who have been donating to the Tory party are friends of Putin

Not to mention Cummings Russian connections.

 wercat 23 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

when I hear about the clown's Union Saving trip to Scotland today and these donations channelled through convenient "UK Citizens" to ministers I can't help thinking that in the long chess-game that Russians love they have been paying the Tory Party for a decade or more to break up the Union.  In their defence perhaps the Tories are UnWitted about this.  On the morning of the Brexit result the first protest I made at the radio as the horror shattered my morning was about the breakup of the UK.  If a dimwit like me can see that as a consequence how much better the chess players from the KGB who practised long games for many decades?

1
 neilh 23 Jul 2020
In reply to Tyler:

I do not disagree with what you are saying on political donations, although there is an inherent issue with those people actually being UK citizens .  Donations from overseas are of course illegal.Whether that should be tightened up to include Dual citizens I do not know.

The issue I am pointing out is that alot of people woke upto the issue of Russia following Salisbury. You do know for example that Abramovich was basically refused a new visa and he bailed out of the UK.This was because of concerns over " unexplained wealth". May started a firmer line.There were other example of this.

It is why I was disappointed in the report.It failed to show what has happened since. It needed an appendix to include Salisbury and the reprecussions on relations with Russia and what happened post 2018 just to remind people.

The report was imho usless in that respect and totally out of date.

Post edited at 09:22
1
 jkarran 23 Jul 2020
In reply to dread-i:

> That bastion of integrity the disgraced MP Grant 'spam boy' Schapps, said:

> ...

> It's either that, or he's lying. Lying about his marketing prowess. Lying to parliament. And telling porkies on R4 (which is unforgivable.)

LOL. Don't hold back on our behalf.

Schapps is a grifter. If Sliding Doors were a documentary there'd be a version of him with better hair picking pockets on the tube.

jk

 dread-i 23 Jul 2020
In reply to jkarran:

>> That bastion of integrity the disgraced MP Grant 'spam boy' Schapps, said:

>> ...

>> It's either that, or he's lying. Lying about his marketing prowess. Lying to parliament. And telling porkies on R4 (which is unforgivable.)

>LOL. Don't hold back on our behalf.

I don't want people to think that I hold an irrational dislike for tories. I dislike the tories for a number of reasons, none of which are irrational.

However, to support my claims about the fragrant Mr Shapps I present as evidence:

  • Lying to parliament

"Grant Shapps, the Tory party chairman, had a second job as a “multimillion-dollar web marketer” under the pseudonym Michael Green for at least year after he first became an MP.

It is a suggestion that Shapps has repeatedly denied for three years"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/15/grant-shapps-admits-he-had-second-job-as-millioniare-web-marketer-while-mp

  • Disgraced

"Grant Shapps, a former Tory chairman, has resigned from the government in disgrace in the wake of revelations that he had been warned about bullying in the party before the death of one of its young activists."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/28/grant-shapps-resigns-over-bullying-scandal

  • Spam boy

"Matt Freckleton, managing director of Yatterbox told the Guardian: "After doing some research we were able to compile some graphs which suggest that Grant Shapps – or someone with access to Grant's Twitter account – is regularly and purposely following and unfollowing many thousands of people on Twitter. It is quite normal for anybody to unfollow people on Twitter, but when it is done in such large numbers on such a frequent basis it does raise questions as to what is going on and why."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grant-shapps-5-things-you-5343396

  • Marketing

"Police looked into allegations that How To Corp Ltd, a company co-founded by Mr Shapps under the alias Michael Green, was selling "plagiarising" software which helps firms boost profits by breaching Google's rules."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-calls-for-grant-shapps-suspension-over-fraud-claim-8919257.html

And as we were talking about fake bots and spreading influence during brexit.

He's right up there on the list, at a storming number 3.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grant-shapps-5-things-you-5343396

Post edited at 11:26
 mondite 23 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> The report was imho usless in that respect and totally out of date.

If only someone hadnt been busy suppressing it for the best part of a year eh?

Although the key points seem to hold up well.

1
 neilh 23 Jul 2020
In reply to mondite:

Was it not just a damp squib. Neither one thing nor the other, a bit useless in reality after all the press hype.

Even if published a year ago , with the findings, it would have still not done what people desired..

Post edited at 12:09
4
 cb294 23 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

It did prove treason by deliberate inactivity.

CB

1
 mondite 23 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Was it not just a damp squib. Neither one thing nor the other, a bit useless in reality after all the press hype.

No it wasnt a damp squib. It wasnt overly useful in showing interference, or not, but the clearly stated reason for that was that the tories refused to look. Which is more than slightly suspicious.

It is a bit two wise monkeys and that they have chosen to do so is rather damning.

1
 neilh 23 Jul 2020
In reply to mondite:

Well direct the question at the brief set by an independent committee ( as per law) and the independent committee itself.Dominic Grieve was the chairman, so why did he not go looking?He had every reason to and was pro Remain.

And do not forget the Intelligence Services ignored the threat even though it was within their remit to go looking for it ( no matter what the govt said).

Someimes you wish we have a USA style of govt on these things.

And of course we only see the " public" parts. The real meat is well, secret.

Post edited at 13:30
4
 mondite 23 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Well direct the question at the brief set by an independent committee ( as per law) and the independent committee itself.Dominic Grieve was the chairman, so why did he not go looking?He had every reason to and was pro Remain.

Nice attempt at a smear there with the remain bit.

You do realise that isnt in their power? They are MPs not James Bond despite the fantasies of Francois about how he and Cummings would sort things out.

They did what they could which was ask for the information from the security services.

Its also hilarious that you use the "as per law" when we have just had the government blatantly try to rig it with the superb "we didnt try to get grayling elected but we are removing the whip because...."

> And do not forget the Intelligence Services ignored the threat even though it was within their remit to go looking for it ( no matter what the govt said).

Again nice attempt to deflect but can we stick to the actual subject. Which is the tory governments have deliberately avoided investigating whilst, coincidently, taking large campaign contributions from Putins cronies.

> And of course we only see the " public" parts. The real meat is well, secret.

Aside from the intelligence committee has access to that hence why this was censored. So unless you are claiming they lied about it this really doesnt add up.

1
 neilh 23 Jul 2020
In reply to mondite:

I voted remain.

And the intelligence committee is set up to be independent. I assume you know that the chairman etc is by law independent of the govt ( it is why Lines voted the way he did, it annoyed him that the govt had nominated Grayling, when that is not allowed under the statutes that govern this specific committee).

The issue here is that those who were looking for the report to state that there was interference in the Brexit vote and that there are vast sums being dished out to the Tories from Russia are disappointed.It was a damp squib, it did not live upto all the fuss around it.Yet paradoxically the chairman of the committee who prepared the report  ( grieve not Lines)is a well recognised remainer( I am sure we can agree on that).

What have we really got out of the report..the fact that in 2016 nobody really bothered to look or keep an eye on whether there was interference.

By the last election things had moved on and from what I recall there  is now alot more awareness of this risk.

On political donations , it is easy to find out if there are millions going to the Tories from Russians with uk citizenship.

Anyway China is the issue now, not Russia.Russia is last century.

Post edited at 14:53
2
 wercat 23 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

but not so easy to find out whether the millions are being channelled VIA Russians with UK citizenship to the Tories ...

execution of long term plans

 Bob Kemp 23 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> And do not forget the Intelligence Services ignored the threat even though it was within their remit to go looking for it ( no matter what the govt said).

My understanding is that MI6 takes instructions from the Foreign Secretary of the day. Who was that when this issue came up? Oh yes, a certain Boris Johnson...

 mondite 24 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> And the intelligence committee is set up to be independent. I assume you know that the chairman etc is by law independent of the govt

Why yes I do. So rather telling this government tried to get past that and put in place a useless patsy.

Now why do you think that is and  would you for once concede that this really wasnt a good thing for the tories to do?

> The issue here is that those who were looking for the report to state that there was interference in the Brexit vote and that there are vast sums being dished out to the Tories from Russia are disappointed.It was a damp squib, it did not live upto all the fuss around it.Yet paradoxically the chairman of the committee who prepared the report  ( grieve not Lines)is a well recognised remainer( I am sure we can agree on that).

So you double down on the attempted smearing with the ohhh he was a remainer and therefore must be biased against the glorious brexiteers.

It wasnt a damp squib. We know that the tories had no interest in investigating foreign influence in the UK. We also know they took large amounts from Putins cronies as donations and, for example, Johnson went off personally to hang out with them.

> What have we really got out of the report..the fact that in 2016 nobody really bothered to look or keep an eye on whether there was interference.

Wow finally you admit something.

Your desperate defence of the tories at all times really is quite fascinating. What would they have to do for you to go there might be a problem here?

1
 neilh 24 Jul 2020
In reply to mondite:

I said all along that the report was useless.....read my posts.

2
 mondite 24 Jul 2020
In reply to neilh:

> I said all along that the report was useless.....read my posts.


Yes I know and I have said along that you are wrong. Its main use is showing just how badly the government has been failing us and continuing to do so.

 DizzyVizion 24 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

So, complaining about being bullied then yeah. Cool.

1
 MargieB 26 Jul 2020
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Starmer has set a new agenda and the up-coming Lib Dem vote could very well set a new powerful leader. The nadir of options of 2019 is shifting.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.