Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Russian Interference In Elections - Monkey Dont Look, Monkey Dont See
59 Answers
Monkey here is Boris by the way
a great white monkey (*)
Interference in the 2016 election was not detected as there was a failure to look. even under prodding - I seem to remember people were saying Putin wd try to interfere
erm and a question to Abers - what do you think
(*) the white monkey is a book by Galsworthy as anyone conversant with the Forsyte Sage 1967 (Beeb) will confirm
a great white monkey (*)
Interference in the 2016 election was not detected as there was a failure to look. even under prodding - I seem to remember people were saying Putin wd try to interfere
erm and a question to Abers - what do you think
(*) the white monkey is a book by Galsworthy as anyone conversant with the Forsyte Sage 1967 (Beeb) will confirm
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Peter Pedant. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
anyway
have you seen the Beeb world news 08 30
journo - isnt para 14 - they found nothing ?
MP who co-wrote the paper - - er you are taking thisout of context - later on we say that that was because they didnt look
flustered journo: oh I haven net read it and dont have a copy to hand
well done the Beeb
the MP had also said the report looked at interference in elections, So who was it who said yesterday - no elections no interference ?
crazy maisie whaddya think today?
have you seen the Beeb world news 08 30
journo - isnt para 14 - they found nothing ?
MP who co-wrote the paper - - er you are taking thisout of context - later on we say that that was because they didnt look
flustered journo: oh I haven net read it and dont have a copy to hand
well done the Beeb
the MP had also said the report looked at interference in elections, So who was it who said yesterday - no elections no interference ?
crazy maisie whaddya think today?
PP, an interesting viewpoint here:-
https:/
https:/
I think that whether the Russians tried or not, the results came out as necessary so they would have wasted their resources. Folk here knew what was at stake and most made their decision as they saw fit regardless of any outside messing about.
It's fair enough to check into any vulnerability, and correct any deficiencies, but it still changes nothing of past votes.
It's fair enough to check into any vulnerability, and correct any deficiencies, but it still changes nothing of past votes.
"PP// there was a failure to look//
Yes, and the report lays the blame for that squarely on MI.5. "
No, they don't. it's not up to MI5 to investigate this sort of thing without being asked. What they do criticise the intelligence services for is complacency.
There is a lot more to this than interference in elections. But arguing the toss over the outcome of those elections is beside the point: the worry is the interference per se.
Russia does have an idle, inquisitive, interfering mentality which dominates a lot of its espionage. What other country for example would spend a fortune on training illegals to adopt new identities in foreign countries and maybe spend a lifetime there without ever producing much of intelligence!
Yes, and the report lays the blame for that squarely on MI.5. "
No, they don't. it's not up to MI5 to investigate this sort of thing without being asked. What they do criticise the intelligence services for is complacency.
There is a lot more to this than interference in elections. But arguing the toss over the outcome of those elections is beside the point: the worry is the interference per se.
Russia does have an idle, inquisitive, interfering mentality which dominates a lot of its espionage. What other country for example would spend a fortune on training illegals to adopt new identities in foreign countries and maybe spend a lifetime there without ever producing much of intelligence!
>> the report lays the blame for that squarely on MI.5.
> No, they don't. It's not up to MI5 to investigate this sort of thing without being asked.
Paragraph 34 in the report:
> In our opinion, the operational role must sit primarily with MI5, in line with its statutory responsibility for “the protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy ... ”.
The issue seems to be that MI5 had a lot on its plate. The report talks about changes in percentages of time spent looking at Russia over the years. With percentages, it's difficult to tell actual numbers - they may have spent more actual time if they had a big increase in resources - but the assumption is that with the rise of international terrorism, MI5 spent a lot more time looking at that and a lot less time looking at Russia. They took their eye off that particular ball, as others were lobbed at them.
> No, they don't. It's not up to MI5 to investigate this sort of thing without being asked.
Paragraph 34 in the report:
> In our opinion, the operational role must sit primarily with MI5, in line with its statutory responsibility for “the protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy ... ”.
The issue seems to be that MI5 had a lot on its plate. The report talks about changes in percentages of time spent looking at Russia over the years. With percentages, it's difficult to tell actual numbers - they may have spent more actual time if they had a big increase in resources - but the assumption is that with the rise of international terrorism, MI5 spent a lot more time looking at that and a lot less time looking at Russia. They took their eye off that particular ball, as others were lobbed at them.
// No, they don't. it's not up to MI5 to investigate this sort of thing without being asked. What they do criticise the intelligence services for is complacency.//
so when the arena bomb went off - all the spooks went on drinking tea for a day or two as - no one asked us !
well ! learn a thing a day on AB !
so when the arena bomb went off - all the spooks went on drinking tea for a day or two as - no one asked us !
well ! learn a thing a day on AB !
> It’s not up to MI5 to initiate investigations into things like the referendum. That might be seen as political and has to come from the government.
It is up to MI5 to have stopped manipulation of the referendum in the first place and, if they realise they have failed to do so, to bring that to the attention of the Government.
It is up to MI5 to have stopped manipulation of the referendum in the first place and, if they realise they have failed to do so, to bring that to the attention of the Government.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.