Jokes3 mins 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.
Well Boris Johnson wasn't around PM-wise in 2016, when there was a referendum rather than an election.
The report isn't really concerned with that though, but it's a wide ranging assessment of the threat the Russian state poses to the UK.
The main points coming out seem to be:
It's a major threat
We were rubbish at investigating it, as you imply.
This goes back to 2006 and Litvienko, when mass murder could very easily have occurred on the streets of London, but the reaction was tame in the extreme - not necessarily thr external one, but the internal one
The report isn't really concerned with that though, but it's a wide ranging assessment of the threat the Russian state poses to the UK.
The main points coming out seem to be:
It's a major threat
We were rubbish at investigating it, as you imply.
This goes back to 2006 and Litvienko, when mass murder could very easily have occurred on the streets of London, but the reaction was tame in the extreme - not necessarily thr external one, but the internal one
jesus the report tiself takes some finding
lucky I posed this question ( cos I am a ferret I am)
https:/
the govt's response is VERY available- in fact - - - I hear a knock at the door, that must be a post-boy wivva copy
lucky I posed this question ( cos I am a ferret I am)
https:/
the govt's response is VERY available- in fact - - - I hear a knock at the door, that must be a post-boy wivva copy
... the cunning Russians tried to influence the Scottish Independence referendum (to split the Union and weaken the UK) and they spectacularly failed. So our Gov't became complacent - and that left us fully exposed to Russian cunning - and we (England and Wales, at least) in our brainwashed stupors shuffled off to the ballot box and Russian cunning won through in the end... Is that it, Ellipsis?..
"awful ! imply ? IMPLY ! - I try to talk straight sir !"
Erm .. :-)
"I thought the internal Rx to Litvinenko wasnt bad - and a good trg for novichok as it was easy then - wave a geiger counter around and polonium is ionizing so a 11 y old cd pick it up ..."
A gram of polonium-210 could wipe out most of the population of the UK. The quantity of (non-radioactive) novichok-class nerve agent smuggled into Britain could have killed thousands.
Both materials were handled unbelievable casually (possibly because the handlers weren't told how toxic is was - a lot of the poloium was spilled down a plughole)
Not sure what an adequate response to those would look like but it felt in 2006 that the government of the day was simply not up to the enormity of it. Maybe 2006 prepared us mentally for the enormity of 2018, but that doesn't excuse the series of casual brushings over of other less spectacular cases: there was the bloke shot twice in the head given a verdict of suicide for example: ok I may be exaggerating slightly, but only slightly ...
Erm .. :-)
"I thought the internal Rx to Litvinenko wasnt bad - and a good trg for novichok as it was easy then - wave a geiger counter around and polonium is ionizing so a 11 y old cd pick it up ..."
A gram of polonium-210 could wipe out most of the population of the UK. The quantity of (non-radioactive) novichok-class nerve agent smuggled into Britain could have killed thousands.
Both materials were handled unbelievable casually (possibly because the handlers weren't told how toxic is was - a lot of the poloium was spilled down a plughole)
Not sure what an adequate response to those would look like but it felt in 2006 that the government of the day was simply not up to the enormity of it. Maybe 2006 prepared us mentally for the enormity of 2018, but that doesn't excuse the series of casual brushings over of other less spectacular cases: there was the bloke shot twice in the head given a verdict of suicide for example: ok I may be exaggerating slightly, but only slightly ...
Was Boris PM in 2016?
I am sure foreign Governments interfere in other countries elections if they think there is something in their interest to do so. As for the Scottish referendum I suspect it would be a waste of time. I am pretty sure the vast majority, either way, had made up their minds well before any election was even announced.
It's always going to be difficult to stop this especially with social media being pretty much unregulated. I would also expect to see China in there too now (if they havnt already been).
And how white is the UK? Not very I suspect?
I am sure foreign Governments interfere in other countries elections if they think there is something in their interest to do so. As for the Scottish referendum I suspect it would be a waste of time. I am pretty sure the vast majority, either way, had made up their minds well before any election was even announced.
It's always going to be difficult to stop this especially with social media being pretty much unregulated. I would also expect to see China in there too now (if they havnt already been).
And how white is the UK? Not very I suspect?
Well, if you give me a bit more to go on, perhaps I will.
First of all, please tell me what 'election' (singular) you're referring to in 2016. Surely not the local elections (plural).
I just assumed you'd slipped up and by 'election' you meant 'Referendum', or you'd slipped up on the date and you meant the General Election of the following year (there's a distinct shortage of pearls in the OP).
First of all, please tell me what 'election' (singular) you're referring to in 2016. Surely not the local elections (plural).
I just assumed you'd slipped up and by 'election' you meant 'Referendum', or you'd slipped up on the date and you meant the General Election of the following year (there's a distinct shortage of pearls in the OP).
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Uk Diplomats Meet Rebel Leader In...
News7 mins ago
Jokes17 mins ago
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.