One very smart poster also pointed out that the PVV had underperformed its poll scores at each of the last three elections.
Others pointed out that the Turkey/Nazi spat came at a very convenient time for Rutte as well!
But one poster assured me that was good for the PVV and bad for the VVD.
If you are referring to me I actually said on the evening it first broke out 'probably benefits the PVV but who knows' and while I did admittedly initially call that wrong as the next polls came out and until the exit polls I consistently said the VVD would likely come first. Earlier in the campaign I also posted Rutte's statement 'migrants be normal or be gone' as evidence he was toughening his stance in response to Wilders
The first and last are proper job horses, laid out for the race. Native River will run them ragged though I suspect he'd prefer it softer. Wonderful Charm at 6/1 is an e/w steal against the short fav. Try some small stakes e/w doubles and trebles as well as win singles.
Be lucky.
And many thanks again (I'm interested!) - hope you have a good day wherever you're watching/listening.
I echo thanks to Mr Meeks over the Netherlands. Sadly I made the numpty error of the year by assuming that Rutte next PM was a good proxy for VVD win, so am out of my money for months.
You'll get it back eventually.
@rcs1000 Put me on to the dutch opportunity, Meeks' piece and foresight on the Erdogan reaction encouraged me to up my stake.
Note that the polls were around 6 seats wrong for the VVD. That certainly doesn't justify PVV favouritism as there was for ages, but it does imply the rags were too long. Particularly the CDA on election night - they are a party with a strong history who surely shouldn't have been 100-1 before the exits.
Pulps ...... I don't believe Ishmael_Z has yet conceded having lost his dough, merely that he is out of it "for months" whilst the Dutch power brokers get to work.
Mainly that, and there's the actuarial risk interfering with my sleep as I wonder whether I could insure his life for the next year.
Disclosure - since I would hate anyone to think I was trying to make anyone think I was a high roller kinda guy, my potential winnings are £23.50.
GCHQ HAS confirmed that Donald Trump’s private communications are nothing but the same meaningless bollocks he says in public.
The communications intelligence agency admitted they did listen to the President’s phone calls but only once and they would never waste their time doing it ever again.
Mr. 1000, when you either attach shame or otherwise attack/condemn those who express a view, it suppresses the polling compared to reality. Not much of a surprise, we saw the same in the UK (not only before 2015, but shortly after the election when 'Tory scum' was daubed somewhere [war memorial?] and there was a protest against a government that hadn't been in office for more than a few weeks).
It's one of many problems caused by those eagerly wrapping morality into politics.
Andy is a great chap. I've met him a couple of times and always went away feeling energised in myself and entirely confident in his capabilities.
I remember a mate of mine saying the much the same about Grant Shapps to me about 10 years ago.
Many 'business leaders' proved indifferent MPs. This job seems to be for a puffed-up 'leader of the council'. The main problem as I see it with UK local govt. isn't lack of elected mayors, it's the legacy of 40-50 years of having powers taken away, e.g. Thatcher largely removed the ability to borrow. No wonder many local govts. aren't that inspiring and fill regularly Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs pages, if Whitehall just issues orders from on high to obey its orders and not try anything enterprising.
In Sweden and Finland, county councils run most of the NHS. In Canada, provinces run most of the NHS. They typically have a population of a few million, not 64 million. That's devolution.
Yes, thanks for the sound tips on the Netherlands and before that Stoke.
My mate had kids at the same school as Grant Shapps's, there was a barbecue where instead of being a normal parent like the rest of them. GS was going round working every table.
The first and last are proper job horses, laid out for the race. Native River will run them ragged though I suspect he'd prefer it softer. Wonderful Charm at 6/1 is an e/w steal against the short fav. Try some small stakes e/w doubles and trebles as well as win singles.
Be lucky.
And many thanks again (I'm interested!) - hope you have a good day wherever you're watching/listening.
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
Isn't it the standard MO to get a 5 Eyes ally to spy on your own citizens to get round assorted laws and to provide plausible deniability?
Andy is a great chap. I've met him a couple of times and always went away feeling energised in myself and entirely confident in his capabilities.
I remember a mate of mine saying the much the same about Grant Shapps to me about 10 years ago.
Many 'business leaders' proved indifferent MPs. This job seems to be for a puffed-up 'leader of the council'. The main problem as I see it with UK local govt. isn't lack of elected mayors, it's the legacy of 40-50 years of having powers taken away, e.g. Thatcher largely removed the ability to borrow. No wonder many local govts. aren't that inspiring and fill regularly Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs pages, if Whitehall just issues orders from on high to obey its orders and not try anything enterprising.
In Sweden and Finland, county councils run most of the NHS. In Canada, provinces run most of the NHS. They typically have a population of a few million, not 64 million. That's devolution.
Yes, thanks for the sound tips on the Netherlands and before that Stoke.
Too many business leaders in the UK aren't very good at building high-quality businesses; so it's no surprise that they're not very good at politics either.
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
Isn't it the standard MO to get a 5 Eyes ally to spy on your own citizens to get round assorted laws and to provide plausible deniability?
UK - main centre right party performs better than polls Portugal - main centre right party performs better than polls
2016:
Spain - main centre right party performs better than polls USA - main centre right party performs better than polls
2017:
Netherlands - main centre right party performs better than polls*
Make of that what you will. D (Exceptions: Ireland 2016, where FG underperformed their poll share.)
* works if you choose either CDA or VVD
In Spain in 2016 PSOE also did better than the polls predicted. Both Podemos and Ciudadanos under-performed. The story there was more about the two traditional parties doing better than expected, probably because turnout was low and sustained mainly by older voters.
Andy is a great chap. I've met him a couple of times and always went away feeling energised in myself and entirely confident in his capabilities.
I remember a mate of mine saying the much the same about Grant Shapps to me about 10 years ago.
Many 'business leaders' proved indifferent MPs. This job seems to be for a puffed-up 'leader of the council'. The main problem as I see it with UK local govt. isn't lack of elected mayors, it's the legacy of 40-50 years of having powers taken away, e.g. Thatcher largely removed the ability to borrow. No wonder many local govts. aren't that inspiring and fill regularly Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs pages, if Whitehall just issues orders from on high to obey its orders and not try anything enterprising.
In Sweden and Finland, county councils run most of the NHS. In Canada, provinces run most of the NHS. They typically have a population of a few million, not 64 million. That's devolution.
Yes, thanks for the sound tips on the Netherlands and before that Stoke.
Too many business leaders in the UK aren't very good at building high-quality businesses; so it's no surprise that they're not very good at politics either.
Many business leaders are just that - leaders. They find it difficult both to become a small ant of a backbench MP where they are whipped both by their party and their constituents, and also to leave the business they have been leading to make time for an MP's workload.
UK - main centre right party performs better than polls Portugal - main centre right party performs better than polls
2016:
Spain - main centre right party performs better than polls USA - main centre right party performs better than polls
2017:
Netherlands - main centre right party performs better than polls*
Make of that what you will. D (Exceptions: Ireland 2016, where FG underperformed their poll share.)
* works if you choose either CDA or VVD
In Spain in 2016 PSOE also did better than the polls predicted. Both Podemos and Ciudadanos under-performed. The story there was more about the two traditional parties doing better than expected, probably because turnout was low and sustained mainly by older voters.
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
Isn't it the standard MO to get a 5 Eyes ally to spy on your own citizens to get round assorted laws and to provide plausible deniability?
One very smart poster also pointed out that the PVV had underperformed its poll scores at each of the last three elections.
Others pointed out that the Turkey/Nazi spat came at a very convenient time for Rutte as well!
But one poster assured me that was good for the PVV and bad for the VVD.
If you are referring to me I actually said on the evening it first broke out 'probably benefits the PVV but who knows' and while I did admittedly initially call that wrong as the next polls came out and until the exit polls I consistently said the VVD would likely come first. Earlier in the campaign I also posted Rutte's statement 'migrants be normal or be gone' as evidence he was toughening his stance in response to Wilders
As the fashion now seems for everyone to come on here and boast about their great tips or how much money they've made on exchanges and the like (no one talks much about their losses), I'll join in:
I offered the stayers' hurdle winner yesterday morning:
3.30: NICHOLS CANYON (10/1)
My only winner of the week so far albeit with plenty of places and a good number of losses. Probably well down overall but one more day left to dig that hole a shade deeper.
I thought I was the only person on here to have ever backed a loser?
(1) France has had a much less fun time of Euro membership than the Netherlands, and the EU is less popular there. With a majority of PVV voters thinking the Euro a good thing, the key plank of their platform was anti-Islam. While anti-Islam is a major part of the FN's appeal, is ere than in other countries. (This could play badly for Macron.)
(4) France's problems with Muslim integration are not new.
(5) The FN still the French Overseas territories did not vote. Those three places are by far the weakest for the FN.
All together, I still struggle to see MLP getting more than 35% against Macron, or 40% against Fillon in the second round. Given the FN has - like the VVD - repeatedly underperformed its poll scores in actual elections, I think it is entirely possible they will end up on just 22-23% in the first round. I also wonder if Fillon's... errr... issues have led to shy Republicains. (And it's also possible the FN will have a late fade like the PVV.) For that reason, I continue to think the market is underestimating the chance of a Fillon vs Macron final two. Bet accordingly.
Marine Le Pen actually outperformed final polling in 2012 in the first round
Sure also outperformed at the European elections in 2014. But, I would weight the more recent polling evidence more than the old.
She polls better than the FN, she outperforms the brand if you like which also has to be factored in
Worth remembering though that in 2015, in the Regionals, when she was up for the Premiership of Nord-Pas de Calais, she did slightly worse in terms of round two pickups than her party as a whole.
There may be exceptions and transfers may play slightly differently but we do know she has made her party into a far more effective election machine than her father left it in
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
I assumed they were simply responding using the same wording as the accusation. Anything else might have left them open to accusations of dishonety by omission
"Aha! You mentioned These 7 types of bugging/interception but omitted this one so you must be doing that!"
If I'm thinking a first strike by the USA could be justified then imagine what is going through "Mad Dog"'s head. I wouldn't book a trip to North Korea any time soon !
Mr. Pulpstar, I seem to recall many people suggesting your first strike line was a bit aggressive.
If the US hits North Korea, the North Koreans may reply with an artillery strike or two on Seoul (or a barrage, if Kim Jong-un feels like it). Retaliation seems inevitable.
If that is the case, any attack would need be very significant indeed, to diminish the capacity of the North to react. Not a pretty picture either way.
UK - main centre right party performs better than polls Portugal - main centre right party performs better than polls
2016:
Spain - main centre right party performs better than polls USA - main centre right party performs better than polls
2017:
Netherlands - main centre right party performs better than polls*
Make of that what you will. D (Exceptions: Ireland 2016, where FG underperformed their poll share.)
* works if you choose either CDA or VVD
In Spain in 2016 PSOE also did better than the polls predicted. Both Podemos and Ciudadanos under-performed. The story there was more about the two traditional parties doing better than expected, probably because turnout was low and sustained mainly by older voters.
UK - main centre right party performs better than polls Portugal - main centre right party performs better than polls
2016:
Spain - main centre right party performs better than polls USA - main centre right party performs better than polls
2017:
Netherlands - main centre right party performs better than polls*
Make of that what you will. D (Exceptions: Ireland 2016, where FG underperformed their poll share.)
* works if you choose either CDA or VVD
In Spain in 2016 PSOE also did better than the polls predicted. Both Podemos and Ciudadanos under-performed. The story there was more about the two traditional parties doing better than expected, probably because turnout was low and sustained mainly by older voters.
I have Spain in there!
I know! I was just pointing out the centre-left in Spain also did better than the polls predicted and offering an explanation as to why.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
I wouldn't assume anything either way. Suppose for the sake of argument GCHQ DID wiretap Trump along with unspecified agents on place who would have had to do the actual work of setting it up. They would have had to do it in a conspiracy with the Obama administration so the latter could use the information for partisan benefit. A stupid conspiracy for GCHQ to enter into, but stupidity isn't proof against not doing something. The key point though is that the means don't matter. The unfounded accusation still remains that Obama administration had Trump wiretapped. No-one has put forward any corroboration for that accusation.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Why? They tend not to make statements.
Yes, but when they do they are usually false or deliberately misleading.
Please provide examples.
Here is a starting point. In GCHQ's view this isn't "mass surveillance", which they say they don't do, merely "bulk interception", which is just a full-take internet buffer attached to essentially every internet exchange or fibre landing point in the UK.
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
I assumed they were simply responding using the same wording as the accusation. Anything else might have left them open to accusations of dishonety by omission
"Aha! You mentioned These 7 types of bugging/interception but omitted this one so you must be doing that!"
They should have said "We didn't bother wiretapping Trump until he became President"
If I'm thinking a first strike by the USA could be justified then imagine what is going through "Mad Dog"'s head. I wouldn't book a trip to North Korea any time soon !
McMasters is also around though. A cerebral General from what I have read.
UK - main centre right party performs better than polls Portugal - main centre right party performs better than polls
2016:
Spain - main centre right party performs better than polls USA - main centre right party performs better than polls
2017:
Netherlands - main centre right party performs better than polls*
Make of that what you will. D (Exceptions: Ireland 2016, where FG underperformed their poll share.)
* works if you choose either CDA or VVD
In Spain in 2016 PSOE also did better than the polls predicted. Both Podemos and Ciudadanos under-performed. The story there was more about the two traditional parties doing better than expected, probably because turnout was low and sustained mainly by older voters.
I think people naturally 'want' a change from the status quo, especially if they don't have a stake in the issue. that influences a lot of things.
I wouldn't assume anything either way. Suppose for the sake of argument GCHQ DID wiretap Trump along with unspecified agents on place who would have had to do the actual work of setting it up. They would have had to do it in a conspiracy with the Obama administration so the latter could use the information for partisan benefit. A stupid conspiracy for GCHQ to enter into, but stupidity isn't proof against not doing something. The key point though is that the means don't matter. The unfounded accusation still remains that Obama administration had Trump wiretapped. No-one has put forward any corroboration for that accusation.
It's far too hot a potato for GCHQ to do something like that, even though they probably do have the capability to tap Trump's phones that are connected to commercial carriers and networks, as do many intelligence agencies.
Not sure if I've told this story on here before, but my dad once got into trouble with GCHQ. When he was working at Yamaha, he had a note on his desk asking him to call a customer who had had his motorcycle in for repairs. When he called the number, a lady answered the phone and said something like, "hello, Cheltenham Post Office, how can I help?" My dad then asked to speak to the guy who had called at which point the woman went off on one asking my dad "how did you get this number? Who are you? This is very serious!" My dad tried to explain that he was just returning a customer's call but the woman hung up.
Anyway, my dad called up the customer's local dealer and it turned out that the idiot had given my dad his work number and the dealer knew he worked at GCHQ. Given the way the lady on the GCHQ switchboard reacted, I'd have thought the guy would have been in serious trouble!
I assume the statement itself is a bit more in depth, because playing devil's advocate 'GCHQ spokesperson says allegations that it was asked to 'wire tap' Trump are 'nonsense' + 'utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”' only denies that they were asked to wire tap, not that they didn't do it unprompted.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
In general I believe unequivocal denials of things as its usually not worth the cost should the truth then emerge, but when it comes to intelligence organisations surely the standard approach is:
1) We don't do that 2) Ok, we do it but it is legal 3) Ok, maybe it isn't legal, but it is necessary 4) Ok, maybe it isn't necessary, but we think it'd be useful 5) Get the law changed to make it legal
Not sure if I've told this story on here before, but my dad once got into trouble with GCHQ. When he was working at Yamaha, he had a note on his desk asking him to call a customer who had had his motorcycle in for repairs. When he called the number, a lady answered the phone and said something like, "hello, Cheltenham Post Office, how can I help?" My dad then asked to speak to the guy who had called at which point the woman went off on one asking my dad "how did you get this number? Who are you? This is very serious!" My dad tried to explain that he was just returning a customer's call but the woman hung up.
Anyway, my dad called up the customer's local dealer and it turned out that the idiot had given my dad his work number and the dealer knew he worked at GCHQ. Given the way the lady on the GCHQ switchboard reacted, I'd have thought the guy would have been in serious trouble!
An outraged "How did you get this number?" Lady Bracknell style is a good way to deal with cold callers.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Why? They tend not to make statements.
Yes, but when they do they are usually false or deliberately misleading.
Please provide examples.
Here is a starting point. In GCHQ's view this isn't "mass surveillance", which they say they don't do, merely "bulk interception", which is just a full-take internet buffer attached to essentially every internet exchange or fibre landing point in the UK.
It is sophistry to say that all that is not mass surveillance.
That is what I meant by 'not unaccustomed to casuistry'. In this country it tends to be the politicians rather than the security services who tell flat out untruths.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Why? They tend not to make statements.
Yes, but when they do they are usually false or deliberately misleading.
Please provide examples.
Here is a starting point. In GCHQ's view this isn't "mass surveillance", which they say they don't do, merely "bulk interception", which is just a full-take internet buffer attached to essentially every internet exchange or fibre landing point in the UK.
It is sophistry to say that all that is not mass surveillance.
Totally dissimilar to the statement they have just made about Trump.
On your new point, it is no more mass surveillance than police going round looking at CCTV in order to solve a crime. GCHQ are saving the Haystack in order to find the needle later. They are not looking at you or me (well not me anyway ;-)), so it is not mass surveillance in a 'Big Brother' way as implied. Whether you agree with that or not is a different matter, since we were talking about GCHQ's statement - and that seems pretty clear and believable.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Why? They tend not to make statements.
Yes, but when they do they are usually false or deliberately misleading.
Please provide examples.
Here is a starting point. In GCHQ's view this isn't "mass surveillance", which they say they don't do, merely "bulk interception", which is just a full-take internet buffer attached to essentially every internet exchange or fibre landing point in the UK.
It is sophistry to say that all that is not mass surveillance.
Totally dissimilar to the statement they have just made about Trump.
On your new point, it is no more mass surveillance than police going round looking at CCTV in order to solve a crime. GCHQ are saving the Haystack in order to find the needle later. They are not looking at you or me (well not me anyway ;-)), so it is not mass surveillance in a 'Big Brother' way as implied. Whether you agree with that or not is a different matter, since we were talking about GCHQ's statement - and that seems pretty clear and believable.
it's more the difference between 'passive' survaillance and 'active'.
Passive in that GCHQ have the ability to look at everything if they wanted to for a reason. Active would be if they are actually looking at everyone.
I think most people would be happy for the first option, but not so much for the second.
The first and last are proper job horses, laid out for the race. Native River will run them ragged though I suspect he'd prefer it softer. Wonderful Charm at 6/1 is an e/w steal against the short fav. Try some small stakes e/w doubles and trebles as well as win singles.
Be lucky.
You'll need all that luck now I've followed you in :>
My own thoughts on the races are, well I just don't know today.
Un De Sceaux yesterday was enormous at 11-4 with SkyBet I thought - punters placing too much weight on Ruby Mullins doing nothing on day one I suspect.
Gold cup:
Cue Card would be an emotional winner, but I agree with freetochoose's unsaid comment that he is probably too old now at 11. Certainly too old to justify 3s. Sad that Vautour has passed away, and also that both Coneygree and especially Thistlecrack are injured.
Weird to see Dodging Bullets in the Grand Annual, but he hasn't done anything in the last two years. He's only nine !
If I'm thinking a first strike by the USA could be justified then imagine what is going through "Mad Dog"'s head. I wouldn't book a trip to North Korea any time soon !
There's no way the US would tackle NK alone - it would upset China too much.
A better approach would be to persuade China that it was no longer in its interest to help maintain the NK regime, something they are reluctantly doing, and which is costing them both money and political capital. And to do that, you would need to do something to allay the Chinese fears: mostly about the vast numbers of refugees from NK it would cause, the costs of a failed NK, and potentially having US troops directly on its border.
Potentially to allay those fears: *) An agreement between the G8 countries to throw massive amounts of aid for redevelopment and education to a new-era NK. *) An agreement that US troops would not occupy NK, and the only allied troops allowed in NK would be ones responding directly to current-era NK threats (and perhaps reconstruction troops). *) Make it clear that both NK and SK will be set to be sovereign states, at least until both are in a position to have free and fair votes over reunification. *) If reunified, US and Chinese troops should leave SK and NK respectively.
Which isn't going to happen. Instead what we'll get is a massively disorganised and chaotic NK collapse. Eventually. Sometime. Perhaps.
Andy is a great chap. I've met him a couple of times and always went away feeling energised in myself and entirely confident in his capabilities.
I remember a mate of mine saying the much the same about Grant Shapps to me about 10 years ago.
Many 'business leaders' proved indifferent MPs. This job seems to be for a puffed-up 'leader of the council'. The main problem as I see it with UK local govt. isn't lack of elected mayors, it's the legacy of 40-50 years of having powers taken away, e.g. Thatcher largely removed the ability to borrow. No wonder many local govts. aren't that inspiring and fill regularly Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs pages, if Whitehall just issues orders from on high to obey its orders and not try anything enterprising.
In Sweden and Finland, county councils run most of the NHS. In Canada, provinces run most of the NHS. They typically have a population of a few million, not 64 million. That's devolution.
Yes, thanks for the sound tips on the Netherlands and before that Stoke.
Too many business leaders in the UK aren't very good at building high-quality businesses; so it's no surprise that they're not very good at politics either.
Many business leaders are just that - leaders. They find it difficult both to become a small ant of a backbench MP where they are whipped both by their party and their constituents, and also to leave the business they have been leading to make time for an MP's workload.
It's not just backbench MPs - Archie Norman struggled as a minister I vaguely recall . In the US the impression one gets us that Tillerson isn't over impressed with other Administration colleagues.
Andy is a great chap. I've met him a couple of times and always went away feeling energised in myself and entirely confident in his capabilities.
Everyone I know who's met with him or dealt with him has said the same. It's not always true that good businessmen make good politicians - look to the US for an example - but John Lewis isn't the usual example of a successful company either. With the increase in the professional political classes, and the media intrusion keeping people from wanting to enter public life, it's great to see someone with such experience running for office.
China wouldn't dare do anything if the USA took action on North Korea. For all US decline and China rising, the US military is still more powerful than all the other global forces combined.
"If it is the latter - which is certainly the case with LPM - then this means recognising that taking such a course will ensure that Labour remains a party of extreme opposition for many years to come. We prefer that to forming a government that has no chance of carrying out the full programme of Marxism. Hence we envisage the taking of power not just in Britain in isolation, but as part of a worldwide movement of working class self-liberation that has Europe as its decisive point of departure."
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
Do you really really think we don't spy on the Americans? And they don't spy on us?
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
Do you really really think we don't spy on the Americans? And they don't spy on us?
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Trump is a person that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever he makes any statement.
The neutral way of saying that Trump's claim is categorically untrue would be by using the words "categorically untrue". 'Nonsense' and 'utterly ridiculous and should be ignored" say the same thing with a huge anti Trump rhetorical charge. It is hard to believe that this wording would have been used without the approval of the Home Office and of very senior bods in the US intelligence community. What with this and Tillerson's musings on NK, the world feels a bit less safe than when i woke up this morning because there is nothing more likely to intensify trump's paranoia than credible evidence that everyone is in fact out to get him.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Why? They tend not to make statements.
Yes, but when they do they are usually false or deliberately misleading.
Quite. What they were doing can plausibly be called something other than 'wire tapping' then - maybe a software monitor rather than a hardware one. That GCHQ said anything is telling in itself.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Why? They tend not to make statements.
Yes, but when they do they are usually false or deliberately misleading.
Quite. What they were doing can plausibly be called something other than 'wire tapping' then - maybe a software monitor rather than a hardware one. That GCHQ said anything is telling in itself.
China wouldn't dare do anything if the USA took action on North Korea. For all US decline and China rising, the US military is still more powerful than all the other global forces combined.
They were massively more powerful than China in 1950, yet China still forced them back to the 38th parallel. In the last couple of decades the disparities between the Chinese and US militaries, and their politics, have lessened.
Any action done about NK has to be done with the knowledge and implicit agreement of the Chinese.
CNN are quoting and headlining an academic who says that one option for Malaysia to recover its citizens from Pyongyang- admittedly they call it the least plausible of three - is to sneak in and exfiltrate them. If they don't fancy trying an Entebbe, maybe the special forces could wear tree suits or something?
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Why? They tend not to make statements.
Yes, but when they do they are usually false or deliberately misleading.
Please provide examples.
Here is a starting point. In GCHQ's view this isn't "mass surveillance", which they say they don't do, merely "bulk interception", which is just a full-take internet buffer attached to essentially every internet exchange or fibre landing point in the UK.
It is sophistry to say that all that is not mass surveillance.
Totally dissimilar to the statement they have just made about Trump.
On your new point, it is no more mass surveillance than police going round looking at CCTV in order to solve a crime. GCHQ are saving the Haystack in order to find the needle later. They are not looking at you or me (well not me anyway ;-)), so it is not mass surveillance in a 'Big Brother' way as implied. Whether you agree with that or not is a different matter, since we were talking about GCHQ's statement - and that seems pretty clear and believable.
it's more the difference between 'passive' survaillance and 'active'.
Passive in that GCHQ have the ability to look at everything if they wanted to for a reason. Active would be if they are actually looking at everyone.
I think most people would be happy for the first option, but not so much for the second.
Don't disagree. Looking at individuals who are terrorist suspects is fine and would of course cost a fair bit.
China wouldn't dare do anything if the USA took action on North Korea. For all US decline and China rising, the US military is still more powerful than all the other global forces combined.
They were massively more powerful than China in 1950, yet China still forced them back to the 38th parallel. In the last couple of decades the disparities between the Chinese and US militaries, and their politics, have lessened.
Any action done about NK has to be done with the knowledge and implicit agreement of the Chinese.
Hmm, I think the probability of our differing hypotheses being tested is now non trivial at any rate..
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
Do you really really think we don't spy on the Americans? And they don't spy on us?
*shakes head in despair*
There's nothing Brit-flavoured in the US that compares in scale with the US comint (NSA) base at Menwith Hill near Harrogate. There are several other admitted sites of US comint and humint gathering and analysis in Britain, including in Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Cornwall, and London. Meanwhile the largest air base in Britain, by number of personnel and size, is the USAF one at Lakenheath.
China wouldn't dare do anything if the USA took action on North Korea. For all US decline and China rising, the US military is still more powerful than all the other global forces combined.
That doesn't mean it could always achieve its objective or couldn't lose a war. In the fifth domain of warfare it seems to be a long way behind the Russians. The US doesn't even provide all of the security for its own nuclear installations, either civil or military.
Admittedly, though, there's been a lot of Chinese money moving into property in Britain.
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
Do you really really think we don't spy on the Americans? And they don't spy on us?
god I'm drunk and tired after writing an entire chapter of a thriller, having TOO MUCH SEX last night, and now watching the enervating tedium of ARRIVAL. I had so much sex I have crocked my knee
Clearly it's too late to save my knee, or my liver, but can someone tell me whether it's worth pursuing ARRIVAL?
It just feels like some Portuguese speaking woman talking in the rain to allegorical migrants, right now. YAWNFEST
No. Tedium continues with boring, predictable 'surprise' ending.
Arrival is a great film. For the thinking viewer. Best watched sober, however.
It really didn't require that much thinking. I like a slower, contemplative movie, I love Amy Adams and Jeremy renner, but it feels like arrival, while of good quality, is a movie gettting elevated praise because it's supposed to be for the 'thinking viewer' more than how clever it truly is.
The classic film for that is Inception: we went to see it and wondered why people were saying they were getting confused by the layers. Drastically over-rated.
If you want a film that is genuinely confusing, then Shane Carrith's Primer is for you. I've seen it many times and still don't clearly know who is when. A brilliant film.
It's also odd to have a film that is so confusing that essentially has only two characters.
Turned out I rather enjoyed ARRIVAL
Not a masterpiece, but deft film-making and some decent ideas. And a poignant coda.
I didn't get the chance to see Arrival at the cinema, but Mrs J and I decided we'd both probably enjoy it so much we'd just get it on DVD and save the money.
Intelligent sci-fi is relatively rare in the cinema: Star Trek and Star Wars aren't exactly intelligent.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Why? They tend not to make statements.
Yes, but when they do they are usually false or deliberately misleading.
Quite. What they were doing can plausibly be called something other than 'wire tapping' then - maybe a software monitor rather than a hardware one. That GCHQ said anything is telling in itself.
Quite. I'm amazed they did. The language speaks for itself too. 'Ludicrous' is another favourite of those caught out.
China wouldn't dare do anything if the USA took action on North Korea. For all US decline and China rising, the US military is still more powerful than all the other global forces combined.
They were massively more powerful than China in 1950, yet China still forced them back to the 38th parallel. In the last couple of decades the disparities between the Chinese and US militaries, and their politics, have lessened.
Any action done about NK has to be done with the knowledge and implicit agreement of the Chinese.
Hmm, I think the probability of our differing hypotheses being tested is now non trivial at any rate..
Indeed. Okay, I'll subtly alter my position: the US would be absolutely mad to do something about NK without Chinese agreement.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Trump is a person that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever he makes any statement.
The neutral way of saying that Trump's claim is categorically untrue would be by using the words "categorically untrue". 'Nonsense' and 'utterly ridiculous and should be ignored" say the same thing with a huge anti Trump rhetorical charge. It is hard to believe that this wording would have been used without the approval of the Home Office and of very senior bods in the US intelligence community. What with this and Tillerson's musings on NK, the world feels a bit less safe than when i woke up this morning because there is nothing more likely to intensify trump's paranoia than credible evidence that everyone is in fact out to get him.
Again, to be fair, it was "media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano" whose comments they called utterly ridiculous. That Trump's White House spokesman should have attached any credibility to those comments is, of course, a matter for him. The doofus.
it's more the difference between 'passive' survaillance and 'active'.
Passive in that GCHQ have the ability to look at everything if they wanted to for a reason. Active would be if they are actually looking at everyone.
I think most people would be happy for the first option, but not so much for the second.
The intelligence and security services argument is basically that providing that no human being reads your emails or listens to your calls you are not being surveilled. This only applies to citizens of the same country, it doesn't apply to foreigners at all, and doesn't apply to the collection of metadata which can be very revealing in itself. There are also all sorts of loopholes in the name of national security, and associated collection of data about people who have connections to a target, however tangential, or mass surveillance collecting citizens information by "accident".
In reality today's intelligence services capture, store, index, and transcribe essentially everything they can get their hands on. But it's not mass surveillance because they haven't personally read your file, they just have vast amounts of your personal data, and everybody else's data, stored away for future reference. This is a bit like the Stasi saying that there's nothing wrong with having a file on millions of people providing it sits unread in a filing cabinet.
China wouldn't dare do anything if the USA took action on North Korea. For all US decline and China rising, the US military is still more powerful than all the other global forces combined.
They were massively more powerful than China in 1950, yet China still forced them back to the 38th parallel. In the last couple of decades the disparities between the Chinese and US militaries, and their politics, have lessened.
Any action done about NK has to be done with the knowledge and implicit agreement of the Chinese.
Hmm, I think the probability of our differing hypotheses being tested is now non trivial at any rate..
Indeed. Okay, I'll subtly alter my position: the US would be absolutely mad to do something about NK without Chinese agreement.
@JosiasJessop Another SpaceX first coming up, reused booster to be launched at the start of next month !
Looking forward to it! I watched yesterday's launch, but didn't post it on here because it was an expendable flight with no landing: i.e. boring.
However it looks like we'll need to wait for the block ?5? Falcon 9 due to fly at the end of this year before they see full cost savings from reusability. It looks as though it includes all the lessons learn from their recovered rockets so far.
I'm also interested in Blue Origin's plans: they've just announced their first customers for orbital launches.
Edit: apparently it took SpaceX four months to refurbish the recovered first stage ready for its next flight. They'll have to get that time down a lot to really make money from reusability.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied...
I think Trump's claim is nonsense, but GCHQ is an organisation that you should assume is lying or obfuscating whenever they make any statement.
Why? They tend not to make statements.
Yes, but when they do they are usually false or deliberately misleading.
Quite. What they were doing can plausibly be called something other than 'wire tapping' then - maybe a software monitor rather than a hardware one. That GCHQ said anything is telling in itself.
Quite. I'm amazed they did. The language speaks for itself too. 'Ludicrous' is another favourite of those caught out.
I was hoping GCHQ were going to describe it as an inverted pyramid of piffle.
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
Do you really really think we don't spy on the Americans? And they don't spy on us?
*shakes head in despair*
That is not what I said. What is absolutely ridiculous - and would be illegal both here and in the US - is the idea that GCHQ would take instructions from a US president to spy on one of the contenders for his post.
Trump's travel ban is going to come down to one simple point when it reaches the SCOTUS I feel.
First amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Does "the people" include non citizens of the USA ?
My personal view is that I do not think it does, the scope of the US constitution is internal to the USA - so Congress can make whatever law it likes with respect to non citizens of any religion outside the USA.
China wouldn't dare do anything if the USA took action on North Korea. For all US decline and China rising, the US military is still more powerful than all the other global forces combined.
They were massively more powerful than China in 1950, yet China still forced them back to the 38th parallel. In the last couple of decades the disparities between the Chinese and US militaries, and their politics, have lessened.
Any action done about NK has to be done with the knowledge and implicit agreement of the Chinese.
Hmm, I think the probability of our differing hypotheses being tested is now non trivial at any rate..
Indeed. Okay, I'll subtly alter my position: the US would be absolutely mad to do something about NK without Chinese agreement.
But remember who is now the commander in chief...
Rex Tillerson has given Kim Jong Il 'Fair warning' not to push it any further today. Lets hope he heeds that message.
The only thing which troubled me about the GCHQ denial is the reference to 'wire tapping' - which would leave an organisation not unaccustomed to casuistry plenty of wiggle room.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
Do you really really think we don't spy on the Americans? And they don't spy on us?
*shakes head in despair*
That is not what I said. What is absolutely ridiculous - and would be illegal both here and in the US - is the idea that GCHQ would take instructions from a US president to spy on one of the contenders for his post.
@JosiasJessop Another SpaceX first coming up, reused booster to be launched at the start of next month !
Looking forward to it! I watched yesterday's launch, but didn't post it on here because it was an expendable flight with no landing: i.e. boring.
However it looks like we'll need to wait for the block ?5? Falcon 9 due to fly at the end of this year before they see full cost savings from reusability. It looks as though it includes all the lessons learn from their recovered rockets so far.
I'm also interested in Blue Origin's plans: they've just announced their first customers for orbital launches.
Edit: apparently it took SpaceX four months to refurbish the recovered first stage ready for its next flight. They'll have to get that time down a lot to really make money from reusability.
I would imagine they can over time. for the immediate future though they probably want to check the status of every component before letting it go again.
@JosiasJessop Another SpaceX first coming up, reused booster to be launched at the start of next month !
Looking forward to it! I watched yesterday's launch, but didn't post it on here because it was an expendable flight with no landing: i.e. boring.
However it looks like we'll need to wait for the block ?5? Falcon 9 due to fly at the end of this year before they see full cost savings from reusability. It looks as though it includes all the lessons learn from their recovered rockets so far.
I'm also interested in Blue Origin's plans: they've just announced their first customers for orbital launches.
Edit: apparently it took SpaceX four months to refurbish the recovered first stage ready for its next flight. They'll have to get that time down a lot to really make money from reusability.
The administration will argue that the first amendment covers freedom of speech (of Americans in America) not immigration policy; and that the proposed immigration restrictions are because the named countries are suffering civil war and exporting terrorism, not that they're Islamic countries.
The intelligence and security services argument is basically that providing that no human being reads your emails or listens to your calls you are not being surveilled. This only applies to citizens of the same country, it doesn't apply to foreigners at all
Pity dual citizens: they must be surveilled and not surveilled at the same time.
@JosiasJessop Another SpaceX first coming up, reused booster to be launched at the start of next month !
Looking forward to it! I watched yesterday's launch, but didn't post it on here because it was an expendable flight with no landing: i.e. boring.
However it looks like we'll need to wait for the block ?5? Falcon 9 due to fly at the end of this year before they see full cost savings from reusability. It looks as though it includes all the lessons learn from their recovered rockets so far.
I'm also interested in Blue Origin's plans: they've just announced their first customers for orbital launches.
Edit: apparently it took SpaceX four months to refurbish the recovered first stage ready for its next flight. They'll have to get that time down a lot to really make money from reusability.
Great to see space technology being pushed hard by Spacex and Blue Origin. The re-usable first stages dramatically cut the launch costs if they can be recycled and used a few times.
Comments
Disclosure - since I would hate anyone to think I was trying to make anyone think I was a high roller kinda guy, my potential winnings are £23.50.
The communications intelligence agency admitted they did listen to the President’s phone calls but only once and they would never waste their time doing it ever again.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/he-spouts-exactly-the-same-bollocks-in-private-gchq-confirms-20170317124290
UK - main centre right party performs better than polls
Portugal - main centre right party performs better than polls
2016:
Spain - main centre right party performs better than polls
USA - main centre right party performs better than polls
2017:
Netherlands - main centre right party performs better than polls*
Make of that what you will.
(Exceptions: Ireland 2016, where FG underperformed their poll share.)
* works if you choose either CDA or VVD
They tend not to make statements.
It's one of many problems caused by those eagerly wrapping morality into politics.
GS was going round working every table.
On the other hand, in a US context, much of the legislation covering surveillance dates back to when a physical wire tap was how it was conducted, and this has been extended by inference to modern procedures.
No.
I remain perplexed by the absence of the points markets on SI, which has the championship markets (ie rankings) up, and has done for days.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39301842
"Aha! You mentioned These 7 types of bugging/interception but omitted this one so you must be doing that!"
If the US hits North Korea, the North Koreans may reply with an artillery strike or two on Seoul (or a barrage, if Kim Jong-un feels like it). Retaliation seems inevitable.
If that is the case, any attack would need be very significant indeed, to diminish the capacity of the North to react. Not a pretty picture either way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/16/trumps-first-budget-hobbesian-horror1/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSCULAR_(surveillance_program)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_the_Internet
It is sophistry to say that all that is not mass surveillance.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/suicidebyoccupation/england2011to2015
Anyway, my dad called up the customer's local dealer and it turned out that the idiot had given my dad his work number and the dealer knew he worked at GCHQ. Given the way the lady on the GCHQ switchboard reacted, I'd have thought the guy would have been in serious trouble!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3110479/tank-chasing-lawyer-phil-shiner-declares-bankruptcy-despite-1million-business-value-in-suspected-bid-to-dodge-4million-payout/
https://twitter.com/theretroexec/status/842642680152768512
BBC This Week
We shall say this only once.... please forgive us for the opening titles of #bbctw https://t.co/odnkmzsI46
1) We don't do that
2) Ok, we do it but it is legal
3) Ok, maybe it isn't legal, but it is necessary
4) Ok, maybe it isn't necessary, but we think it'd be useful
5) Get the law changed to make it legal
In this country it tends to be the politicians rather than the security services who tell flat out untruths.
On your new point, it is no more mass surveillance than police going round looking at CCTV in order to solve a crime. GCHQ are saving the Haystack in order to find the needle later. They are not looking at you or me (well not me anyway ;-)), so it is not mass surveillance in a 'Big Brother' way as implied.
Whether you agree with that or not is a different matter, since we were talking about GCHQ's statement - and that seems pretty clear and believable.
Passive in that GCHQ have the ability to look at everything if they wanted to for a reason. Active would be if they are actually looking at everyone.
I think most people would be happy for the first option, but not so much for the second.
2.10 Vosne Romanee £5 E/W 20-1 6 places
3.30 Native River £10 Win single 5-1
4.10 Wonderful Charm £5 E/W 3 places 1,2,3,4
5.30 Dandridge £5 E/W @ 8-1 4 places 1,2,3,4
Double Wonderful charm / Dandridge £5 E/W
My own thoughts on the races are, well I just don't know today.
Un De Sceaux yesterday was enormous at 11-4 with SkyBet I thought - punters placing too much weight on Ruby Mullins doing nothing on day one I suspect.
Gold cup:
Cue Card would be an emotional winner, but I agree with freetochoose's unsaid comment that he is probably too old now at 11. Certainly too old to justify 3s.
Sad that Vautour has passed away, and also that both Coneygree and especially Thistlecrack are injured.
Weird to see Dodging Bullets in the Grand Annual, but he hasn't done anything in the last two years. He's only nine !
A better approach would be to persuade China that it was no longer in its interest to help maintain the NK regime, something they are reluctantly doing, and which is costing them both money and political capital. And to do that, you would need to do something to allay the Chinese fears: mostly about the vast numbers of refugees from NK it would cause, the costs of a failed NK, and potentially having US troops directly on its border.
Potentially to allay those fears:
*) An agreement between the G8 countries to throw massive amounts of aid for redevelopment and education to a new-era NK.
*) An agreement that US troops would not occupy NK, and the only allied troops allowed in NK would be ones responding directly to current-era NK threats (and perhaps reconstruction troops).
*) Make it clear that both NK and SK will be set to be sovereign states, at least until both are in a position to have free and fair votes over reunification.
*) If reunified, US and Chinese troops should leave SK and NK respectively.
Which isn't going to happen. Instead what we'll get is a massively disorganised and chaotic NK collapse. Eventually. Sometime. Perhaps.
https://twitter.com/Rachel_Lynchx/status/842335435108040705
"If it is the latter - which is certainly the case with LPM - then this means recognising that taking such a course will ensure that Labour remains a party of extreme opposition for many years to come. We prefer that to forming a government that has no chance of carrying out the full programme of Marxism. Hence we envisage the taking of power not just in Britain in isolation, but as part of a worldwide movement of working class self-liberation that has Europe as its decisive point of departure."
http://us9.campaign-archive2.com/?u=ce1d69a0213b818b7b73bdbc8&id=370dd1583d
You overestimate the US. Straight up, it's clearly still number one, but it can't shove its wholly military into the Korean peninsula.
Edited extra bit: ahem, whole* military.
*shakes head in despair*
That GCHQ said anything is telling in itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Kurdish–Islamist_conflict_(2013–present)#/media/File:Northern_Syria_offensive_(2015).png
Strategically that puts Islamic State in a vulnerable position with respect to the heart of the snake, Raqqa.
Any action done about NK has to be done with the knowledge and implicit agreement of the Chinese.
Drunk BBC announcer from 1937. I still remember when Peter Woods read the news and was totally sloshed too
https://youtu.be/-hYIGte7fBs
Admittedly, though, there's been a lot of Chinese money moving into property in Britain.
Intelligent sci-fi is relatively rare in the cinema: Star Trek and Star Wars aren't exactly intelligent.
That Trump's White House spokesman should have attached any credibility to those comments is, of course, a matter for him. The doofus.
In reality today's intelligence services capture, store, index, and transcribe essentially everything they can get their hands on. But it's not mass surveillance because they haven't personally read your file, they just have vast amounts of your personal data, and everybody else's data, stored away for future reference. This is a bit like the Stasi saying that there's nothing wrong with having a file on millions of people providing it sits unread in a filing cabinet.
However it looks like we'll need to wait for the block ?5? Falcon 9 due to fly at the end of this year before they see full cost savings from reusability. It looks as though it includes all the lessons learn from their recovered rockets so far.
I'm also interested in Blue Origin's plans: they've just announced their first customers for orbital launches.
Edit: apparently it took SpaceX four months to refurbish the recovered first stage ready for its next flight. They'll have to get that time down a lot to really make money from reusability.
What is absolutely ridiculous - and would be illegal both here and in the US - is the idea that GCHQ would take instructions from a US president to spy on one of the contenders for his post.
First amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Does "the people" include non citizens of the USA ?
My personal view is that I do not think it does, the scope of the US constitution is internal to the USA - so Congress can make whatever law it likes with respect to non citizens of any religion outside the USA.
Really? How do you know?
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Help @Reprieve #freeAndyTsege from Ethiopian prison by buying @LushLtd bath bomb & sign https://t.co/NpMtqO0Z8U https://t.co/Jnb3SZW1Y5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4EAc0QFubs
Who says jezza is a terrorist sympathizer?