Ex-spymaster and fellow Brexiteers' emails leaked by suspected Russian op Emails between leading pro-Brexit figures in the UK have seemingly been stolen and leaked online by what could be a Kremlin cyberespionage team. The messages feature conversations between former spymaster Richard Dearlove, who led Britain's foreign intelligence service MI6 from 1999 to 2004; Baroness Gisela Stuart, a member of …
No, it was symptom of the stupidity of the labour party in choosing a leader even more unsuitable to be PM.
Johnson is an amoral liar and cheat, but we've had a fair number of them as PM in the past, and they did the UK no long term harm. He was the least worst option.
A curse on all their houses.
Johnson is an amoral liar and cheat, but we've had a fair number of them as PM in the past, and they did the UK no long term harm. ..... EvilDrSmith
No long term harm, EvilDrSmith? Oh please, you must be tripping to see and believe that rosy picture. All they have done is cause great harm, for who now, either at home or abroad, can ever trust them with anything sensitive and virtually earth-shattering, practically new and novel ground-breaking?
Fit for Future Greater IntelAIgent Game Purpose? No way, José. And such a shame whenever it could have been so good for them if they had been able to be trusted not be cuckolds and puppets to others.
And how pathetic and revealing it be, that supposedly secret services and secure intelligence agencies that one might expect to be in paramilitary type command and control of leading events, permit and thus condone presentation and continuity of such knucklehead cavalier behaviour.
That can only be indicative of Sub Prime Chief Executive and Chief Operating Office tenure and upper level team leaderships in such services and agencies.
Totally Unfit for the Virtual Reality Takeover and Advanced IntelAIgent Makeover of Mass Multi Media Presented Existence with Future Greater IntelAIgent Games Plays is that which they would have to prove they are fully aware of and engaged with in order to not fail and fall a great deal further into the realms of the absolutely catastrophic and accurately targeted revolutionary, environments in which they exercise zero geopolitical influence nor any type of physicalised neanderthal command and control .... ie they be as helpless cannon fodder/subjects and objects rendered and reduced to carrion and prey.
I would guess it was down to either: (a) an inadequate password, or (b) the use of local malware/keylogging to obtain the password. Doesn't matter how secure the mail app; if your means of access to it is not secure then it doesn't make much difference. And you only need to get access to one of the accounts to see a chain of emails (as suggested by the reply above). Perhaps 2FA may have helped here.
Got to question the motives here. Brexshit was certainly supported by Putin and his media claws like RT, presumably because creating disunity would create opportunity.
I'd still like a thorough audit of UKIP funding. Never gonna happen.
Now that Brexit is 'done', whatever that means (mostly trade disruption for no meaningful benefit to anyone) is upsetting the apple cart meant to sow more dissent?
I've reported this post. I doubt it will get removed because it follows the party line, but it is so obviously trolling that it's tedious.
If you're going to troll, have a bit of nuance about you. This is really poor effort.
My favourite bit of trolling was to simply post "I was very pleased about yesterday's election result" on the Guardian's comment section after the last general election. You could hear the exploding of heads over the Internet, and I didn't need to use any childish wordplay.
Curious. I admit that the chap(ess)'s post is not particularly witty or entertaining (and I concur that the value of the apparent wordplay is limited), but I'm not quite sure which of the house rules you think it's breaking. It doesn't look like trolling to me (at least, no more than your reply does). It's probably worth you noting that "A differing opinion does not make reasonable grounds for reporting a comment. You may end up getting flagged if you continually file unwarranted reports."
Yes, it's a rant (of which there are plenty on here). But I'd say it's very much on topic: it's questioning the motives of the Ruskies for leaking this, considering their previous apparent desire to encourage Brexit. As to whether or not it's bollocks, as noted, this would be a matter of differing opinions.
If you think the above is a troll then it is a stunning example of the ability to misread the intent of the written word; through the lens of the reader.
Brexit was generally supported by Putin and his cronies; which is the strongest argument against it of all. There has been absolutely no benefit to come from it, for anyone in the EU or the UK.
Just as most of economists, businesses and people with their heads screwed on said it was a bad idea.
Clearly, your opinions on the subject differ, you probably also vote a different direction in general elections to I. It does not mean either of us is right. But a moral position is generally preferable to a cronyism one?
Anon,
Not to get into the argument on the merits of the B word, but I wouldn't mind seeing any posts using the terms Brexshit, Remoaner, EUSSR non-ironically being banned. Or sheeple, LibLabCon and NWO, come to think of it.
Admittedly they do serve a purpose of being an excellent sign of a post that's probably not worth reading any more of.
I do also get a bit annoyed by the argument that Brexit is 100% all bad (has no possible upsides to set against any of the obvious downsides) and all right thinking people agree with me that this is so. And therefore you're either stupid or a Putin shill. Admittedly that's a caricature of your argument, which you put a good deal more politely, but still your comment that "most people with their heads screwed on said it was a bad idea". After all, many of those same people also said that not joining the Euro would be a disaster for the British economy. When in fact the Euro is the single worst policy the EU has bequeathed us. Not that you couldn't fairly argue that the good bits of the EU outweigh that policy clusterfuck.
There are a couple of reasons to take a more reasonable middle ground. Firstly because this issue has been divisive enough. Secondly because implying the people who disagree with you haven't got their heads screwed on is a poor way to persuade them to change their minds. Thirdly because saying you can't think of a single good point about Brexit suggests you probably haven't thought about it very much (surely there must be something you can manage).
And lastly, and linked to that second point, most voters in this country aren't particular fans of the EU, or particular haters of it. Things have got more polarised since the referendum and subsequent crisis of course. But most voters were in the middle and were persuadable either way. I'm pretty sure we'd have stil been members had there not been a badly handled Eurozone crisis and refugee crisis at the same time as the vote. Or maybe if the Remain campaign had been more positive and less "you'll regret it if you do". A lot of those voters could have gone either way, and see points on both sides. So if you start from the premise of leave = bad (and probably not very bright), you're alienating a lot more than just people who voted leave. I think that's possibly the reason that those post-referendum polls that've shown a narrow remain win if the vote were re-run now, also often show that only about 30%ish of voters actually wanted another referendum.
I guess, like much of politics, the voters are often more in the centre ground than the activists or party members either side of them. I think it's only law-and-order (and used to be capital punishment) where the general public are to the right of most politicians and activists.
"I think that's possibly the reason that those post-referendum polls that've shown a narrow remain win if the vote were re-run now"
More likely because the people conducting those polls want the results over-turned (hard to imagine the winning side conducting polls today), and how they pose the questions colors the results. What's really surprising is how the results are still so evenly split, despite Brexit having had plenty of time to show its defects (and there were bound to be some). To me this shows the pro-Brexit side (at least the public) had some serious convictions, and were not simply swayed by lies. (Which is not to say they weren't lied to.)
I see two basic political problems on this side of the pond, not sure if either of them fits on your side. (1) People generally form their own political views issue by issue, but they think "other" people don't do the same thing. This plays into (2) people are generally willing to think the worst of "other" people of a different political persuasion. Thus they are susceptible to being lied to about the other side.
The coverage of it floods the search results so much you can't find the actual leak site.
(Not that I wanted to snoop or anything. But Dr Tombs was my tutor and I hope he's not being knocked too harshly. Incidentally he was once hired as a consultant for a French period drama film and came back saying the production team ignored all his advice.)
> The coverage of it floods the search results so much you can't find the actual leak site.
Incredibly, that's one of the techniques described by one of the characters in Umberto Eco's Numero Zero.
I posted the link in one of the comments above if you're interested, though it beats me why it's not in the article.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
