back to article US minister invokes Maggie Thatcher, says she would have halted Huawei 5G rollout

Margaret Thatcher would not let Huawei build Britain's 5G networks, US foreign secretary Mike Pompeo claimed yesterday as British ministers suggested the rollout may be delayed for security reasons. Pompeo was visiting Britain to deliver a bollocking over the UK government's decision to continue allowing Huawei to build the …

  1. Peter X

    Mike Pompeo is an unremitting bell-end. He should just go home.

    1. LordHighFixer

      Keep him. Lock him under the tower. We don't want him back.

      1. NoneSuch Silver badge
        Happy

        "Why would anyone grant such power to a regime that has already grossly violated cyberspace?"

        So wait, I'm confused, they're banning Cisco?

        1. big_D Silver badge

          My thoughts exactly. And any other company whose products the NSA can intercept on-route, say, like HPE?

      2. tfewster
        Joke

        Pompeo's words could be taken as racist hate-speech. Tell you what, revoke his diplomatic immunity and we'll lock him up for you.

        1. Mark 85

          If we could do that (revoke the immunity) I think we'd be sending a few more your way. If you don't want them maybe the Mad Russian might as the gulags might be a better place to hold them.

          1. Kobblestown

            God, no! They'll corrupt the inmates.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Could Ecuador be persuaded to take him? I believe they come space has just become free in their London embassy.

      4. macjules

        We'll give you Farage and Corbyn - you'll be screaming for Pompeo to come home then.

    2. Robinson

      He's right.

      He's right on this and you're wrong. So who's the bellend?

      The government will reverse its idiotic policy eventually.

      1. Andy Denton

        Re: He's right.

        No he's not. He's getting desperate as the US desperately tries to play catch up whilst trying to cling to its dominance of the internet. They're so far behind Huawei, their only option is to stifle them in the West until such time as their companies have caught up.

        1. Spanners Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: He's right.

          By the time the US has caught up with Huawei 5g, they will be working on 7g.

      2. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble?

        Re: He's right.

        He's right on this and you're wrong.*

        * Citation Needed

      3. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: He's right.

        Is there any chance you can give reasons for your assertion? I'm willing to learn...

  2. Alister

    Low blow, Pompeo, low blow.

    Ah, how I wish we had a Prime Minister with some balls (of either gender) who would tell you publicly to fuck off.

    1. Aladdin Sane

      I'll campaign for election with that as my only election pledge.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Great idea, except you need to not only win, but be the leader of the winning party to stand a chance of becoming PM.

        1. Stoneshop

          Great idea, except you need to not only win, but be the leader of the winning party to stand a chance of becoming PM.

          Is the Monster Raving Loony Party participating?

          1. jmch Silver badge
            Devil

            "Is the Monster Raving Loony Party participating?"

            Yes, and they'll win. Just as they won last time. And the time before. And the time before that. And the time before that....

  3. chivo243 Silver badge
    Headmaster

    Pompeo

    name is a harbinger of doom? Close enough!

    Even the pedant would agree...

    1. Claverhouse Silver badge

      Re: Pompeo

      Sulla Felix, Rome's own Trump, first called him 'Great'...

      Others' Adulescentulus Carnifex'

  4. alain williams Silver badge

    Pompeo has lost it ...

    his ravings are becoming ever more the stuff of fantasies. Maybe he is smoking something really good, or perhaps spending too much time close to Trump has gotten him infected with some nasty brain worm.

    He talks about Chinese law ... I hope that someone reminded him of USA law, in particular the Patriot Act.

    1. chivo243 Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

      I have to agree, anyone who spends too much time around Uncle Donny loses perspective, and a grip on reality.

      And don't tarnish drugs good name by associating them with this guy!

      1. MiguelC Silver badge

        Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

        James Comey has a strong opinion about what working for Trump means.

        (spoiler alert, it ends with "And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.")

        1. Stoneshop

          Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

          Some have already lost their soul in a prior event, and have thus become prime candidates for the Orange Turnip's cabinet or other high-ranking posts. E.g. John Bolton.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

            Remarkably, Bolton is probably the only one who HASN'T lost his soul to Trump. He was a classic neocon warmonger before, and is a classic neocon warmonger today. Trump wasn't talking about possibly starting new wars until Bolton came along, so if anything the effect has been the opposite since during the campaign Trump kept talking about how he wanted to keep the US out of stupid wars. I don't know any other way to describe the possibility of the US getting militarily involved in Venezuela...

            1. Stoneshop
              Holmes

              Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

              I don't know any other way to describe the possibility of the US getting militarily involved in Venezuela...

              Oil. And lots of it, right on the US doorstep.

              And since when have Predisent Fart's campaign promises like these been kept?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Up

          Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

          A lifelong conservative who left the republican party because of Trump wrote a book called "Everything Trump Touches Dies". I don't know anything about it, but the title is a winner!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

            Is that about his sex life?

    2. JoMe

      Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

      The law in China REQUIRES common citizens and companies to spy on the west, at every opportunity. This means if they sell hardware that can spy on you, they are required to write in code that does so.

      Since bleeding heart liberals will demand source, and won't bother to lookup stuff on their own thanks to their steady diet of CNN and other media, here is a direct quote from a law professor that has analyzed this law:

      "The Intelligence Law… repeatedly obliges individuals, organizations, and institutions to assist Public Security and State Security officials in carrying out a wide array of “intelligence” work. Article Seven stipulates that “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law.”"

      (SOURCE: Dr. Murray Scot Tanner, Lawfare)

      The Patriot Act, as abhorrent as it is, does not require citizens and companies to spy on others. In short: get your facts right please.

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: bleeding heart liberals

        If the alternative is "raving blinkered loon" i know which side I'm on.

        There are government mandated backdoors in US network equipment.

      2. Joe W Silver badge

        Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

        No backdoor in Huawei kit has been identified (ok: yet)

        There have been backdoors in cisco kit.

        Get your facts right.

        1. Stoneshop
          Headmaster

          Haven't you got the memo yet?

          Facts are irrelevant; any zany opinion is as valid as anything else, and solid reproducible research should be discarded.

      3. Trollslayer
        Thumb Down

        Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

        Huawei 5G equipment and software is examined VERY carefully and they do not (from what I remember) access the core network.

      4. John Gamble
        Boffin

        Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

        The law in China REQUIRES common citizens and companies to spy on the west, at every opportunity.

        Beijing’s New National Intelligence Law: From Defense to Offense

        Summary: it's bad, but no, it doesn't require spying from ordinary citizens. It's almost as though you provided no link in the hopes that no one would bother to search for your reference.

        1. JoMe

          Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

          From your own link:

          The Intelligence Law, by contrast, repeatedly obliges individuals, organizations, and institutions to assist Public Security and State Security officials in carrying out a wide array of “intelligence” work. Article Seven stipulates that “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law.”

          You'll note the word CITIZEN in that sentence.

          1. John Gamble

            Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

            "You'll note the word CITIZEN in that sentence."

            You'll note the word "assist" in that sentence. You'll also note that further in the article it discuss what that assistance is, and no, it doesn't involve active spying, although opening up databases and revealing user lists (among other things) to authorities is still very bad.

            1. JoMe

              Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

              I'll take it you've never "assisted" the authorities with their inquiries; how much choice do you have there?

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

        Please, please fuck off.

        It might work in your small circle, invoking Chinese people as something to be feared.

        In this country, we still have a little bit more class, so please fuck off.

        The danger to the world is not China. It's not China that has over 800 Military bases around the world

        [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321]

        The law of every country requires you to assist the security services, so what?

        If your telco network is so insecure that it matters who makes the kit, you are hosed already,

        Oh and all the kit is made in China, regardless of the vendor badge. So again, please fuck off.

        Apologies if I was inadvertently polite.

        1. JoMe

          Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

          I take it you've never worked for a secret or above rated organization in the US before. Had you done so, you would have been briefed on specific laws, specific documentation, and specific reasons why this is a concern.

          Show me what other country has a law REQUIRING you to spy on another entity. Please, do so. Then I'll gladly, to quote you, f-ck off.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Trollface

            Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

            Sure you work for the super secret services, but you're willing to blow your cover to win arguments on the internet.

            I totally believe you, you are totally credible. Numpty.

            We have laws that require us to help the services on demand, in Blighty, the land of the (rented) flea (pit), and the home of the (skoda) brava.

            RIPA UK https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/ripa-decryption_keys_power/

            https://www.revk.uk/2014/05/is-ripa-fit-for-purpose.html

            Hint plenty of people on here have actually served, (not me), so be careful with your rubbish, otherwise you'll get another spanking, now fuck off back under your bridge.

            1. JoMe

              Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

              "Sure you work for the super secret services, but you're willing to blow your cover to win arguments on the internet."

              Yes, more evidence that you're blowing smoke out your bum, or in other words have no clue what you're talking about. Companies that fall under this category are not government departments in some shady part of town. They develop tools and equipment for a government entity such as the DOD with an S category; such as Tyco, Raytheon, Cobham, hell even munitions companies can fall under this to a degree. I repeat, IF you had worked for companies working in the secret or higher spectrum of projects, you'd know precisely WHY this is a problem and WHAT the impact is if you f-ck it up.

            2. JoMe

              Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

              Oh dear, here's a lawsuit over a company that according to you doesn't exist, blimey what will they claim next?!? I look forward to your scathing letter to the editor about their made up organizations!

              https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/19/tyco_lunchtime_pay_settlement/

      6. Phil Kingston

        Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

        Similar laws in the west. Including the Australian one that requires tech companies to break encryption if asked. Quite how they're their expected to break mathematics isn't known.

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

          Quite how they're their expected to break mathematics isn't known

          This being Australia, probably by drinking vast amounts of beer. Which certainly changes ones perception of reality..

        2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

          Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

          Didn't an Aussie politician answer that question by saying "The laws of Australia trump the laws of mathematics"

      7. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: Pompeo has lost it ...

        "bleeding heart liberals"...

        "diet of CNN"...

        You're a writer for 'The Onion", right?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    isn't this the same Thatcher that signed over Hong Kong to the Chinese? Unavoidable I know but I doubt she would have cared unless she could privatise it.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      re: Hong Kong

      The lease that we had on HK expired and we had to give it back. Simple as that really. We were never really in a position to argue with the chinese once Mao had taken over.

      PM's up to Major were more concerned about an orderly transition to post Colonial Rule than anything else.

      1. LenG

        Re: re: Hong Kong

        Technically this is not completely accurate. The 99 year lease was for the New Territories - Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded in perpetuity (in two separate treaties). However, the New Territories formed the bulk of the area generally referred to as Hong Kong and were essential to the economy of the colony. Returning the whole colony was pragmatically the only sensible thing to do.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: re: Hong Kong

        The clue is in the word "Unavoidable" that I used in my comment and the cared bit is about 5g which is what the article is about. I guess I could have been clearer.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >isn't this the same Thatcher that signed over Hong Kong to the Chinese?

      Pre-opium wars the area of Hong Kong did belong to China in the first place, if you're going to comment on history at least do some research first.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Why do people not read things properly? Honestly I expected more on here, the key word to look at is "Unavoidable" and if you look into the details of it she did concede quite a bit of what we asked for, again not that we had any options anyway. So tell me oh wise sage where in my post do I say it was not unavoidable?

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Given that it was, as you say and understand, unavoidable what, exactly, was your original point? Some ramblings about privatising 5G? Given that it will be privatised network operators installing it (unless Corbyn gets in first) that seems to be a no-op.

  6. israel_hands

    Build A Wall

    And make China pay for it.

    Oh, wait...

    1. Stoneshop

      Re: Build A Wall

      'KING' TURNIP:: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for the night, he can buy our Holy Wall.

      CHINESE-TYPE GUARD PERSON: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen. Uh, he's already got one, you see.

      'KING' TURNIP: What?

      NOTLOB: He says they've already got one!

      'KING' TURNIP Are you sure he's got one?

      CHINESE-TYPE GUARD PERSON: Oh, yes. It's vely nice-a.

      1. Mark 85

        Re: Build A Wall

        Well, it's a damn sight nicer looking than the one Trump wants to build. Maybe we shouldn't give him ideas? Especially since he thinks he's owed two "free" years of being President. I'm waiting for him to claim he has the power to dissolve Congress.

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: Build A Wall

          it's a damn sight nicer looking than the one Trump wants to build

          And all the Chinese one took to build was hundreds and thousands of peasants to be worked to death. A model I'm sure that Trump would be happy to follow.

        2. Thrudd the Barbarian

          Re: Build A Wall

          I suggest hydroflouric acid as the solvent of choice but what do I know?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Build A Wall

      Don't do that. Everyone knows that when you have Chinese you're craving it again an hour later. It'll be walls all the way down!

  7. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

    Has he not noticed that Maggie was probably the most hated Prime Minister of (at least) the 20th century* so most of us don't really give a monkeys what she may or may not of thought?

    "Why would anyone grant such power to a regime that has already grossly violated cyberspace?"

    So he doesn't want us to buy US made equipment either then?

    (*) not sure whether May is trying to steal her crown in the 21st century ...

    1. Daniel von Asmuth

      Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

      No Poll Tax? No 5G! Brtitain's coal miners don't need no smart phones in the eighties.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

      Maggie was probably the most hated Prime Minister of (at least) the 20th century

      She wasn't, actually. There was a YouGov poll a few years back which gave that crown to Tony Blair (37%), compared to Maggie's 30%. 48% thought she was good, versus Blair's 34%

      1. Youngone Silver badge

        Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

        I think when Mr. Pompeo invokes Mrs. Thatcher, he is well aware that the Tories have deified her, and she is above criticism, at least in Tory circles.

        1. Tom 35

          Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

          I think it's the fantasy Thatcher* master conservative (much like the fantasy Reagan*) that he is thinking of.

          * If there were here now the current lot would call them libtards.

        2. Nick Kew

          Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

          Sadly not. The current lot have turned their back on Thatcher's proudest achievement, the Single Market.

          1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

            Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

            The current lot have turned their back on Thatcher's proudest achievement, the Single Market.

            I think she'd have been very happy if it had stayed as a free single market.

            The current centrally-controlled and regulated protectionist apology for a "market" would not have been to her taste.

      2. Kane
        Joke

        Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

        "There was a YouGov poll a few years back which gave that crown to Tony Blair (37%), compared to Maggie's 30%. 48% thought she was good, versus Blair's 34%."

        How many Tories did they have to ask before they got that result?

    3. ratfox
      Angel

      Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

      I think he wrote the speech with Ronald Reagan in mind, and then he realized he would have to switch to the British equivalent.

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

        And he didn't think it through, either.

        Would the Iron Lady be silent when China violates the sovereignty of nations through corruption and coercion?

        Given how much she sucked up to Saudi Arabia regardless of all their corruption and subsequent coercion (anyone remember the Al-Yamamah arms deals?), I think she might well have remained silent.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

      Trump has had some recent disagreements with Pompeo. This seems very much like a trip to somewhere-not-nearby to give Trump some breathing room, rather than sending him to try and persuade the Brits to do something differently.

    5. Intractable Potsherd

      Re: Bit of a blunt argument Sir!

      In general, if Thatcher would have been for it, most people* should be against it, and vice versa. The woman was the single worst thing to happen to this country post WW2, and her legacy led directly to Blair.

      *I.e. People with a social conscience, i.e. not Tories.

  8. Jonathan Richards 1

    Belt and Road

    This is what worries the USA, not the threat to security (at least not electronic security of 5G networks). I don't understand the concern for 5G security - this is going to be the public communications network, isn't it? That hasn't been properly secure since listening in on telegraph wires was a thing. Every time it gets a bit more so, the intelligence services whine about not being able to crack it easily.

    Intelligence shared between the UK and the USA shouldn't ever be anywhere near the public network, and of course we wouldn't build secure networks with dubious hardware. Thus I conclude that Mr Pompeo's invoking of Iron Ladies [1] is more about damaging Chinese commercial opportunities than it is about protecting his secrets.

    [1] Was drawing of pentangles on the floor involved?

    1. Kabukiwookie

      Re: Belt and Road

      Indeed. The chinese are accomplishing through ttade and cooperation, what the US has been trying (and ultimately failing) to do by force and coercion.

      If China gets its way, all countries, except for the US and possibly its most rabid sycophants will be trading amongst one another, spreading wealth and increasing living standards.

      Not only that, if it happens it will leave the US$ worthless and the US isolated.

      1. Tom 35

        Re: Belt and Road

        No, I think China just want their turn at what the US, England and other colonial powers have already had a go at.

        1. Kabukiwookie

          Re: Belt and Road

          If the chinese givernment is smart, and from what I've seen they appear to be a LOT smarter than the politicians who are supposedly serving us, they've recognised that that sort of attempt at hegemony does not last.

          China has been a more or less cohesive empire for some 5000 years in one form or another.

          1. Bitbeisser

            Re: Belt and Road

            "China has been a more or less cohesive empire for some 5000 years in one form or another."

            Not by a long shot. Until a couple centuries ago, it has always been a hodgepodge of many different kingdoms of various sizes, with the largest (usually) being referred to the the empire. Anything but cohesive...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Belt and Road

        I'd be happy to sign up to the Chinese paradise on earth of "all countries trading amongst one another, spreading wealth and increasing living standards". However, there's this minor issue when this or that empire, at the peak of its power, if not earlier, tends to spread not only "wealth and increasing living standards" on those less fortunate provinces and colonies, but certain... ideas too. "Democracy" might be such an idea peddled by the US, and I'm not at all happy to accept Chinese variant of "democracy" they're currently testing on their home turf. In short, the US model is a lesser evil, never mind how twisted and detached from the past ideals it has become.

        Tsaid, to mention Maggie is just ridiculous, given the context of the current 5G debacle). What would king Æthelstan have said, more like... And who the f.. .cares.

    2. oiseau

      Re: Belt and Road

      Was drawing of pentangles on the floor involved

      I can see what you're doing. 8^ )

      O.

  9. Salestard
    Trollface

    You can see his point

    It's understandable that the Americans wouldn't want Huawei doing the wiring on their largest aircraft carrier.

    1. alain williams Silver badge

      Re: You can see his point

      No, they rely on Microsoft to do that

      1. Kabukiwookie

        Re: You can see his point

        Will they also provide Windows for Warships?

        https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/windows_for_war_1.html

  10. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "we have to talk about sensitive things as friends"

    Yes, let's talk about sensitive things. Let's talk about how the USA uses the NSA to grossly violate the privacy of every communication they can get their their grubby mitts on. Let's talk about how the US judiciary sees no problem in claiming it has the right to view emails stored on servers outside of US soil. Let's talk about how Cisco is subject to National Security Letters that can force it to root any of its equipment in the world and divert data to the NSA. Let's talk about NSA wiretaps on international communication lines, where the NSA has no authority.

    Let's talk about "sensitive" matters. Let's indeed.

    1. Marshalltown

      Re: "we have to talk about sensitive things as friends"

      Let's not forget GCHQ here. Britain has some "legal" advantages the US lacks for this kind of thing. The GCHQ is allowed behaviour the NSA wishes it had. The problem with such agencies as NSA and GCHQ is that they exist to spy. Their size and budgets show that someone WANTS them to spy. So, who might those someones be?

    2. Spanners Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Re: "we have to talk about sensitive things as friends"

      I find it simplifies it if I mentally group the NSA, CIA etc with other comparable organisations such as the Mafia, MAFIAA, FSB. BSS and the Kray Twins. They are criminals but not necessarily always illegal.

  11. JoMe

    On the risks...

    He is right.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      He is right.

      He is. He just didn't point out that American equipment has all the same risks plus we know for sure there are back doors in it.

      1. Mark 85

        Re: He is right.

        Ah... the "devil you know versus the devil you don't know" argument. The true assumption should be that backdoors (state sponsored/mandated ) are in all tech equipment and citizens to act appropriately. See "1984" as that's the instruction manual being used.

        1. Kabukiwookie

          Re: He is right.

          You may not be necessarily incorrect, but just because the US does that to their technology companies and therefore assumes that everyone does the same is called projection.

          The best way to distract from your own wrong doings is to accuse someone else of the exact same thing you're doing yourself. This is something we see the US govt do time and time again.

  12. Christoph
    Black Helicopters

    Well of course they want to block Huawei due to spyware in the equipment.

    If we install Huawei kit we won't be installing the kit with NSA and GCHQ spyware in it.

  13. Jeffrey Nonken

    Big yawn.

    5G is not the panacea that so many claim. Mostly people with a monetary interest in seeing it implemented.

  14. Jason Hindle

    Ummm.... Maggie would have sold Marconi to Huawei

    Along with pretty anything else she could have sold!

    1. Nick Kew

      Re: Ummm.... Maggie would have sold Marconi to Huawei

      Marconi was never hers to sell. But I expect she'd have allowed a foreign buyer to rescue it. That's not controversial: after all, it happened in reality under Blair.

      1. Kabukiwookie

        Re: Ummm.... Maggie would have sold Marconi to Huawei

        it happened in reality under Blair.

        Ah yes, Blair. The war criminal who transformed Labour into Tory-lite. Thatcher's greatest accomplishment.

      2. Jason Hindle

        Re: Ummm.... Maggie would have sold Marconi to Huawei

        The Blair government actively encouraged BT to go with Huawei for 21CN; infrastructure now considered very strategic. This killed Marconi, who had their own digital infrastructure, and who were subsequently sold off to Ericsson for a nice spot of asset stripping. Blair was worse than Thatcher when it came to Britain's strategic interests.

  15. Down not across

    Feck off Mike Pompous

    "Ask yourself this. Would the Iron Lady be silent when China violates the sovereignty of nations through corruption and coercion? Would she have welcomed the Belt and Road initiative without demanding absolute transparency and the highest standards? Would she allow China to control the internet of the future?" Pompeo was reported as saying by political journalists.

    Look, Mike Pompous. You talk about violating sovereignty through corruption and coercion. What do you think your ravings about the consequences of another sovereign nation choosing to use Huawei kit is?

    1. Trollslayer
      Thumb Up

      Re: Feck off Mike Pompous

      Mike Pompous - I like it!

  16. quattroprorocked

    Ministry of Culture.

    How is El Reg not calling it the Ministry of Fun :-)

    1. Thrudd the Barbarian

      Ministry of Fun

      Invoking Orwell's double think eh?

  17. David 45

    Condescending, arrogant and patronising

    Is what she was. I always wanted to throw something at the TV screen when she appeared. Strangely enough, Trump has the same effect, She had a thing about nationalised industries. Post Office Telephones (as was, and who I used to work for as an engineer) was actually originally a government department and was running quite happily until Maggie got her sticky hands on it, got it changed to British Telecom, sold it off to all and sundry and it went down the pan from thereon in. Likewise other industries. Gas comes to mind. She was a disaster.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Condescending, arrogant and patronising

      "Post Office Telephones"

      AKA the black telephone rationing organisation.

    2. Kabukiwookie

      Re: Condescending, arrogant and patronising

      She was a disaster

      She actually did quite well. If you were rich already.

  18. Alistair
    Windows

    How about this:

    "Look, I know it's a sensitive topic," Pompeo continued, "but we have to talk about sensitive things as friends. As a matter of ChineseAmerican law, the ChineseAmerican government can rightfully demand access to data flowing through Huawei and ZTE American communications systems. Why would anyone grant such power to a regime that has already grossly violated cyberspace?"

  19. Nick Kew

    In one way he's right: Thatcher did tend to be rather too obsequious towards the Yanks.

    But she who privatised BT absolutely didn't believe in the dead hand of the state trying to tell our telecoms industry what suppliers they could or couldn't use.

    1. streaky

      She did nothing of the sort, as per the example in my comment below.

    2. Marco van de Voort

      True, but Pompeo is no Reagan.

  20. streaky
    Mushroom

    Actually..

    She would have assessed the evidence on its merits, and when she'd done with that she'd have gone and told the US to go fuck itself if she wanted to do so - as she did when the US was equally wrong about The Falklands.

    May has been pissing me right off lately, well, for a long time - but on this she's bang on right, if anything she's being far too cautious.

    Any time the US wants to move their intelligence gathering out of sovereign British territory they're free to do so. No? Didn't think so.

  21. JLV

    I have no special fondness for Huawei. Or indeed Xi’s government. But at some point the US needs to put up or shut up some hard data about these allegations, otherwise they’re going to run out of credibility. Which would be doubly unfortunate if these allegations turned out to be true.

    These are also times when having a POTUS who is perceived as basically shittng on everyone not in his 48% of US voters is a liability.

    1. alain williams Silver badge

      Need for hard data

      they’re going to run out of credibility.

      Why the future tense ?

      1. Thrudd the Barbarian

        Re: Need for hard data

        They have keep it hidden in a tin box burried under the latrines of Valley Forge for more than two centuries and nobody has ever bothered to dig it out.

  22. big_D Silver badge
    Facepalm

    As a matter of law...

    As a matter of US law, the US government can rightfully demand access to data flowing through systems from US manufacturers.

    Hmm, works both way. I don't want either side spying on me. So, home grown kit it is... Oh, wait.

  23. Marshalltown

    Minister????

    Here in the USofA, a "minister" is someone that stands up behind the pulpit in a church. We call the bureacrat a "Secretary".

    1. Aladdin Sane

      Re: Minister????

      Hacker: Who else is in this department?

      Sir Humphrey: Well briefly, sir, I am the Permanent Under Secretary of State, known as the Permanent Secretary. Woolley here is your Principal Private Secretary. I too have a Principal Private Secretary and he is the Principal Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are ten Deputy Secretaries, 87 Under Secretaries and 219 Assistant Secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principal Private Secretaries are plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary.

      Hacker: Can they all type?

      Sir Humphrey: None of us can type. Mrs Mackay types: she's the secretary.

      Minister: Pity, we could have opened an agency.

      Sir Humphrey: Very droll, Minister.

      Hacker: I suppose they all say that, do they?

      Sir Humphrey: Certainly not, Minister. Not quite all...

    2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Re: Minister????

      USofA, a "minister" is someone that stands up behind the pulpit

      Yeah, but being utter newbies, you can't be expected to actually use the English language properly..

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    when China violates the sovereignty of nations through corruption and coercion?

    Kettle, meet Pompeo...

  25. DropBear
    Facepalm

    Ah yes, because everything I know about the British tells me the best way to get them to do something is telling them "you're holding it wrong"...

  26. Big_Boomer Silver badge

    <LOL> Maggie would have chewed Pompeo up and spat him out. She would have looked at Trump like he was something that crawled out from under a rock.

    So, we have Trump (Fartus) and Pumpeo, is there a Mr Pooty in the White House,... or a Parpalot?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like