Wonder why they are saying this today???

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ing-documents-


UK says Russia sought to interfere in 2019 election by leaking documents online

You are doing it allready.

Its not even exclusive, not even remotely.

Sometimes politics is about short term issues, which we have all discussed numerous times itt happily, you included.

Other times we have discussed more "serious" issues, myself obviously included.

Except now you are trying to turn the former into some kind of perverse personal attack.

As I said, plumbing the depths.

and don't forget that the report was approved unanimously and the claim it wouldn't have been released is extremely dubious to pit it mildly. So what little new information it contains would have come out anyway.

Meanwhile decisions over Huawei are being taken in the name of security when it's in large part being driven by politics - that alone is a massively bigger issue then this report. Then there's going to be far really serious stuff coming under the gaze of the security & intelligence committee in the near future.

No, sadly you are.

Russia tried to interfere in our elections. a) This is not remotely a surprise to anyone and b) it's highly implausible the report would be suppressed over it now.

It's is absolutely nothing compared to Huawei alone which, if you want a simple answer to Grayling, is a massively more likely candidate.

Malcolm Rifkind was talking about this on the Today program this morning.

Doesn't sound like Lewis did anything wrong and it does sound like the government were totally out of line.

The report was in very clear danger of never being released. That is simply fact. That has hopefully passed.

Its not that it interfered in elections, its that it interfered in Brexit.

That makes Boris look bad, which is much worse in Boris's mind that smuggling through an issue he has been forced into by backbenchers, something he did not even want to do. Boris is only banning Huawei because of his benchers, he gave them the green light prior.

So yes the claim Grayling was hoisted on the committee to see through a policy that Boris did not even want but not over an attempt to suppress information that makes Boris look bad, yea, nope.

It was highly unlikely not to passed. Sorry, it's just nonsense

Yes they interfered in everything - we know this. Dodgy people fund the tory party - we know this. This is marginally embarrassing but brexit is happening anyway, there's no vote, no election coming up - the government don't care. They will make the obvious noises about how disgraceful and unacceptable interference is. Labour of course will agree with them. This is no problem for boris.

Security issues with trump/china/EU/Russia that's some seriously real **** hitting the fan. Scrutiny of this is serious current business.

Wat?

But yes in reality:

So previous chair saying it might never be published carries a bit more weight than your digging.

Well if it must be released before then that date then clearly they didn't need grayling. Any tory would do, including Lewis.

you're claim remains ridiculous. Yes, it was delayed until after the election.

lol at my claim.

Im just agreeing with the massive consensus on this issue because its clear as day why this is happening.

Your post does above does not even make sense. They need grayling because he will carry on suppresing, Lewis will publish.

The report has been cleared after redaction since last october, its been suppressed, this is utterly uncontroversial.

Previous chair is on record saying it may never be published, again utterly uncontroversial.

we agree that you are in line with the cheap and easily digestible news cycle.

When they report the sky is blue I tend to concur.

Keep plumbing those depths, as predicted.

Ty. I will keep plunging the depths of looking a bit deeper then the trivial nonsense that the news cycle likes to save money on and sound important about.

better late than never (if it ever happens)

Ok, so all news is trivial, even when they are reporting mundane non controversial realities of why something happened, like in this case.

I guess Russian involvement in Brexit is not deep or important enough for Sir Chez, official arbiter of deep.

This whole not deep etc, is just one of your wholly predictable handwaves.

You dont even know Lewis's position on Huawei, for all we know he is perfectly interchangeable with Grayling on that issue.

Which is no deeper than Russian interference in elections btw.

And of course the Tories are currently trying to control the news cycle with their release of a news story which entails russians helping Corbyn, nothing to do with a suppressed document which is now going to be released next week. Sure.

So you will lose all interest in talking about Huawei once it appears in the news.......oh wait.

Your total disregard of the ethics of debating in good faith, its so transparent.

No not all news is trivial. But there's frequently a very superficial element to the way the news is covered, with a focus on some cheap easy bites. Usually a bit of a digging is required. Although in this case, you're just being a bit silly.

re Huawei. You will have to put in a decent bit of effort to follow the story properly. That might include watching the select committees - I recommend it, and you will almost certainly get a quite different picture then from the headlines.

I am pointing out how you are being absurdly silly and of course disingenuous.

There is nothing trivial about russia influencing UK politics, its just you handwaving, and its also silly to suggest that Grayling was being helicoptered into the committee because Huawei as we have no information on his replacements stance on that issue.

There is of course plenty of evidence, very substantial and robust that it has to do with the russian report, and you want to die on the hill of obvious bad faith with your argument of thats just trivial because you went all in on Huawei.

Obviously when the previous chair is on record as saying it might never get published we know its not true because Chez.

and lol at the idea I'm not interested once it's in the news. We're talking about something that's in the news!

Can you really not tell the difference between being interested in the news (the failed grayling stitchup in this case) and simply believing the cheap, superficial way that news is often covered?

You're missing the point mate. It's trivial in terms of new information that might be suppressed.

and I'm not remotely all in on Huawei. It's just obviously far more of an issue where the government will be worried about scrutiny. There is so much else serious stuff.

Its the russia report is in the news because every single person in politics, not just journalists understands the very clear very obvious very non controversial reason why they tried to helicopter in Greening.

No one is saying its Huawei because that is something purely constrained to one random on the internet, trying to write off the absolute consensus of informed opinion as "trivial".

If it was up to the government Huawei would not even be an issue.

Indeed. Well done. I think you might be getting there.