gosh, you got me bang to rights there mate.
Have you read the report? I have.
Officer, That mans just mugged me.
'No, I see no evidence that a crime has been committed'
'Have you looked for evidence?'
'No of course not'
'Oh, thats ok then'
I'm claiming nothing. Just factually highlighting what is in the report. The Government could have stopped this anytime they wanted merely by asking for a retrospective review. That is a recommendation from the security committee so that at least public disquiet can be eliminated. The Government has refused again. Brexit is done and dusted. However the incompetence/sinister behaviour of this government continues. This report simply highlights another example.I dont but im not hearing the rock solid evidence of Russian interference in the brexit vote and that it meant leave rather than remain won?
If you are going to accuse and claim its you that needs to put the evidence forward and a few thousand tweets saying vote leave isn't it im afraid.
Re the Scottish independence vote, the exact same....how did they interfere in that and if they did, they didn't do a very good job of it did they?
Yeah that's not it though is it.Have you read the report? I have.
Officer, That mans just mugged me.
'No, I see no evidence that a crime has been committed'
'Have you looked for evidence?'
'No of course not'
'Oh, thats ok then'
Its sad that people cant see beyond the Brexit angle. Its lost. To me this is much more about the state of our democracy and how hard we are working to protect it from the growing numbers of malign influences that seek to subvert it.What does it say about a country though that refuses to look for crimes against itself? Is it solely down to the amount of Russian money in Tory coffers? Fear of undermining the Brexit cause so that nothing will persuade you to even look?
And what does it say about ‘patriotism’ that those who shout it the loudest are the ones refusing to accept the obvious conclusion to the report that we are so terrified there might be something in this so we dare not investigate?
Yet the report has two lines on the Indy ref about ‘plausible social commentary’ on possible Russian interference and it’s ‘oh yes let’s talk about that and how shocking it is’. Well how about we talk and investigate all of it? The Russian money, the US money, all foreign money in our politics and see whose pockets it is in, see which side foreign actors are backing covertly. If we are going to have foreign involvement let’s have it in the open, registered and documented.
Yeah that's not it though is it.
Officer, I think that man has just mugged me.
Okay, do you have a description?
Open source studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro-Brexit or anti-EUstories on RT and Sputnik, and the use of ‘bots’ and ‘trolls’, as evidence of Russian attempts to influence the process.
This focus on *** indicates that open source material (for example, the studies of attempts to influence the referendum using RT and Sputnik, or social media campaigns referred to earlier) was not fully taken into account. Given that the Committee has previously been informed that open source material is now fully represented in the Government’s understanding of the threat picture, it was surprising to us that in this instance it was not.
Okay, where did this take place?
There has been credible open source commentary suggesting that Russia undertook influence campaigns in relation to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. However, at the time ***. It appears that *** what some commentators have described as potentially the first post-Soviet Russian interference in a Western democratic process. We note that – almost five years on – ***.
42. It was only when Russia completed a ‘hack and leak’ operation against the Democratic National Committee in the US – with the stolen emails being made public a month after the EU referendum – that it appears that the Government belatedly realised the level of threat which Russia could pose in this area, given that the risk thresholds in the Kremlin had clearly shifted, describing the US ‘hack and leak’ as a “game changer ”, and admitting that “prior to what we saw in the States,[Russian interference] wasn’t generally understood as a big threat to [electoral] processes”.
Uhuh, can you tell me what happened or what was taken?
It appears that the Intelligence Community did learn lessons from the US experience,and HMG recognised the Russian threat to the UK’s democratic processes and political discourse. In May 2017, the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) concluded that “ ***” and that “***”. Had the relevant parts of the Intelligence Community conducted a similar threat assessment prior to the referendum, it is inconceivable that they would not have reached the same conclusion as to Russian intent, which might then have led them to take action to protect the process.
Yeah, this isn't worth my time investigating.
We have not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference, ***. This situation is in stark contrast to the US handling of allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, where an intelligence community assessment was produced within two months of the vote, with an unclassified summary being made public. Whilst the issues at stake in the EU referendum campaign are less clear-cut, it is nonetheless the Committee’s view that the UK Intelligence Community should produce an analogous assessment of potential Russian interference in the EU referendum and that an unclassified summary of it be published.
48. ***. Even if the conclusion of any such assessment were that there was minimal interference, this would nonetheless represent a helpful reassurance to the public that the UK’s democratic processes had remained relatively safe.
So once more, for those hard of hearing: where is the proof that Russian interferance had a consequential effect on the result of the referendum, i.e. enough to change the result to that of leave, as was initially claimed?
Have you read the report? I have.
Officer, That mans just mugged me.
'No, I see no evidence that a crime has been committed'
'Have you looked for evidence?'
'No of course not'
'Oh, thats ok then'
I find this topic quite helpful and informative - it provides a good case study of the sleight of hand (aka disingenuous manner) Remainers have displayed since 2016.
Just look at the evolution of the facts.....
1/ Since 2016 - up until July 2020 we have had Remainers banging on about how Russian interference was 'certainly' a factor in the referendum outcome - some were stating clearly that because it was 52-48% then it was clearly a crucial factor - that is a fact
2/ These statements that it 'certainly' happened carried on - I have quoted a typical one from @Ifwecouldjust....... in which he states clearly that it must have happened - that is a fact
3/ The report is published and it does not provide evidence that supports the level of certainty expressed in the claims of Remainers - that is a fact
4/ Do Remainers show any sense of abashment and admit that they were over-stating the certainty that evidence would be found of Russian interference? - Absolutely not a jot of the required character has been shown
5/ Instead they turn it around 180 and make it all about Leavers are wrong because the report does not 100% state that there was not such interference - that is simply disingenuous.
Remainers have been making the claims for 4 years that there has been interference - it has not been Leavers making claims
As I say - the topic holds a useful mirror up to Remainers of how they have acted for 4 years - I wonder if any will have the character to look at the reflection?
Mabel from Scunthorpe was convinced that she should vote remain until whilst browsing for funny Cat videos on facebook she was glimmered by Ivan who posted that British funny Cats are funnier than European funny Cats.
Mabel then told Betty and the die was cast.
And we're asking, where is the evidence that proves that it DID influence the result, i.e. change the result from a remain victory to a leave one.edited for accuracy
No. Obama and the EU suit you and your opinion.russia don’t do things in exactly the same way as Obama or the EU though do they.
So a bunch of Russians sending a few thousand messages that supported brexit on a social media platform, resulted in 17.41m people all voting the same way, did it?
You seeing the issue yet? I doubt it.
Sent thousands of messages on Twitter saying "Vote Brexit" that influenced 17.41 million people, apparently.
It woz the tweets wot won it.
The report that says "there's no evidence of Russian influence in the referendum", rendering the whole thing a waste of time that would see them crucified in the press for wasting money and efforts on an obvious troll?
Gee, I wonder why...
All so simple and easy to understand - if only a person is open-minded and objective
No. Obama and the EU suit you and your opinion.
The prime minister, the chancellor, the leader of the opposition, the Scottish and Welsh leaders, the governor of the Bank of England, the president of the US, the IMF, the national broadcaster, Blair and Major, all arguing for Remain. Yet they still lost, and they’re crying about Russian interference. You’ve got to laugh.And we're asking, where is the evidence that proves that it DID influence the result, i.e. change the result from a remain victory to a leave one.
There's none. Is it possible that a Russian posted a tweet that supported brexit? Yes.
Is there evidence to suggest that this practice had the effect to ultimately change the expected result to a different one as a result of their actions? Absolutely not.
Facts or your own personal truths?Just look at the evolution of the facts.....
How could it? Unless you expect the committee to do the police work personally.3/ The report is published and it does not provide evidence that supports the level of certainty expressed in the claims of Remainers - that is a fact
required character? By whose definition? Yours?Absolutely not a jot of the required character has been shown
These generalised and pompous statements do you absolutely no favours and even alienate those that are relatively friendly towards you.As I say - the topic holds a useful mirror up to Remainers of how they have acted for 4 years - I wonder if any will have the character to look at the reflection?
very circular argument this.....And we're asking, where is the evidence that proves that it DID influence the result, i.e. change the result from a remain victory to a leave one.
There's none. Is it possible that a Russian posted a tweet that supported brexit? Yes.
Is there evidence to suggest that this practice had the effect to ultimately change the expected result to a different one as a result of their actions? Absolutely not.
The article says thousands of messages not a few thousand .... youre selective reading again
Here you actually get it right ..... but it wasn't about 'Vote Brexit' it was playing on the fears of the persuadables ... mainly with an anti immigration message
There is no evidence because no instructions were given to look for any ..... seek and ye shall find.
In your opinion ;-)No. Obama and the EU suit you and your opinion.
Where do they start?very circular argument this.....
nobody looked :-)