Ambassador Farage

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Rowls » Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:00 pm

aggi wrote:That is literally what you were writing.

He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms
Nothing in the leaks would have been "news" to the PM, so it could have been left unsaid.

Personally I'd have the view that describing that administration as "inept and insecure" is a fair description. Do you really think that you could get across the realities of the situation whilst permanently couching it in language so bland as to not cause offence? If it wasn't the examples that were picked up in the paper then it would have been something else unless the ambassador never said anything negative.
I'll repeat for you what I'm "literally" saying:

What I am saying is that diplomats should choose a register of language appropriate for the medium.

That does not include, as you have falsely supposed, not being candid.

His description of an "inept and insecure" administration sounds as though it might be highly accurate but that is not the point.

I really do think that you can get across the kind of information that he conveyed without being anywhere near as undiplomatic. I think also that he chose the wrong register for written communication.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:07 pm

Rowls wrote:
His description of an "inept and insecure" administration sounds as though it might be highly accurate but that is not the point.

It is the ******* point. The whole point of his job is for him to give highly accurate assessments that cannot be open to misinterpretation. The guy has done absolutely nothing wrong, as previous ambassadors have stated. But i guess they're wrong and that you, constantly pig-ignorant as you are, are right.

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:13 pm

Rowls wrote:I never said anything about "not writing it down" - I said he could have re-phrased it, chosen better language, used a euphemism or two.

I haven't answered the question because I haven't seen it.

The answer would be - that's all hypothetical isn't it? I doubt a better constructed email (by which I mean, more diplomatically scripted) would have been leaked or even at all newsworthy.

That's the crux of it - somebody has maliciously done this and they've been able to do so because Sir Kim slipped up in his discretion. I don't think any kind of diplomat should be using this kind of language, at any time, in any form of written communication.
So you think it’s the language that has upset Trump rather than the message? I don’t think the language has made a difference, any communication critical of Trump and his administration would still have had the same effect and therefore still been leaked.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Burnley Ace » Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:14 pm

Rowls wrote:"So what you're saying...."

Why is it that whenever this phrase crops up it is almost always incorrect?

For clarification:

No. That is not "what I'm saying".

What I am saying is that diplomats should choose a register of language appropriate for the medium.
The phrase keeps popping up because the absolute stupidity of what you are writing is almost unbelievable. What sort of language should a diplomat use when the medium is secure encrypted emails sent from the embassy prob ably marked confidential or secret, addressed to the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary?

Has Ringo hacked your account?
This user liked this post: Greenmile

AndyClaret
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
Been Liked: 217 times
Has Liked: 543 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by AndyClaret » Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:17 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:lol. No. You led with your best evidence and it was completely lacking. You lied.
"you lied", jog on Charlie.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:21 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:The phrase keeps popping up because the absolute stupidity of what you are writing is almost unbelievable. What sort of language should a diplomat use when the medium is secure encrypted emails sent from the embassy prob ably marked confidential or secret, addressed to the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary?

Has Ringo hacked your account?
In the age of Wikileaks, professional hackers and countries like Russia actively hacking other countries only an idiot or someone supremely arrogant would send an email pretty much saying the leader of another country is basically an idiot ....

That's the sort of wording you use face to face, not using official communication channels.

That's what Rowls is saying and isn't that hard to understand unless you're really trying not too...

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:26 pm

AndyClaret wrote:"you lied", jog on Charlie.
But what you said is demonstrably untrue.

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by martin_p » Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:27 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:In the age of Wikileaks, professional hackers and countries like Russia actively hacking other countries only an idiot or someone supremely arrogant would send an email pretty much saying the leader of another country is basically an idiot ....

That's the sort of wording you use face to face, not using official communication channels.

That's what Rowls is saying and isn't that hard to understand unless you're really trying not too...
Maybe he should just have put it on Twitter.
This user liked this post: longsidepies

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Burnley Ace » Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:31 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:In the age of Wikileaks, professional hackers and countries like Russia actively hacking other countries only an idiot or someone supremely arrogant would send an email pretty much saying the leader of another country is basically an idiot ....

That's the sort of wording you use face to face, not using official communication channels.

That's what Rowls is saying and isn't that hard to understand unless you're really trying not too...
So the UK and GCHQ are so **** and incompetent they cannot provide a secure email service for ambassadors to report back? You are just taking the **** now.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:10 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:So the UK and GCHQ are so **** and incompetent they cannot provide a secure email service for ambassadors to report back? You are just taking the **** now.
One of the former heads of GCHQ refused to use a smart phone because they weren't secure.
Make of that what you will.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:18 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:One of the former heads of GCHQ refused to use a smart phone because they weren't secure.
Make of that what you will.
There's so much info missing from this that it's absense makes your post worthless.

Did they refuse to use retailer, unencrypted smartphones? Did they refuse a GCHQ issued and secured smartphone? Were they the head of GCHQ at the time?

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:19 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:In the age of Wikileaks, professional hackers and countries like Russia actively hacking other countries only an idiot or someone supremely arrogant would send an email pretty much saying the leader of another country is basically an idiot ....

That's the sort of wording you use face to face, not using official communication channels.

That's what Rowls is saying and isn't that hard to understand unless you're really trying not too...
You've never heard of encryption, have you?

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:46 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:There's so much info missing from this that it's absense makes your post worthless.

Did they refuse to use retailer, unencrypted smartphones? Did they refuse a GCHQ issued and secured smartphone? Were they the head of GCHQ at the time?
Sigh

He used an older style phone because he stated the smart phones weren't safe to use in his job.
I was watching an interview a few years ago.

If anyone thinks that smart phones, emails or other electronic forms of communication are fully safe to use, then they're being naive.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:48 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You've never heard of encryption, have you?
Yeah, but when someone in the UK can hack into the NSA, Pentagon and other US highly classified departments looking for proof of UFO's from their bedrooms in the UK I'd say it isn't guaranteed to be working.
Encryption has always been breakable, we proved that back in WW2.
People get smarter and more determined to hack things, for varying reasons, like money or just to prove it can be done.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by aggi » Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:08 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Yeah, but when someone in the UK can hack into the NSA, Pentagon and other US highly classified departments looking for proof of UFO's from their bedrooms in the UK I'd say it isn't guaranteed to be working.
Encryption has always been breakable, we proved that back in WW2.
People get smarter and more determined to hack things, for varying reasons, like money or just to prove it can be done.
Arguing about encryption whilst clearly demonstrating no understanding of how encryption works.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:13 pm

aggi wrote:Arguing about encryption whilst clearly demonstrating no understanding of how encryption works.
Of course I don't understand that it's designed to only allow the authorized parties to read what's been sent and to stop outside users reading it, makes it unreadable etc.

I'm also of the belief that things can be hacked into and that nothing is really as secure as people like to claim they are.
All cleared up for you.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by AndrewJB » Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:19 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Yeah, but when someone in the UK can hack into the NSA, Pentagon and other US highly classified departments looking for proof of UFO's from their bedrooms in the UK I'd say it isn't guaranteed to be working.
Encryption has always been breakable, we proved that back in WW2.
People get smarter and more determined to hack things, for varying reasons, like money or just to prove it can be done.
What you’re saying is irrelevant because it wasn’t a hacker but someone with access who leaked this. Had the information been written down, or otherwise communicated in a way it could be filed it would still have been leaked. The issue is not our diplomatic service, but someone in government.

Erasmus
Posts: 761
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 574 times
Has Liked: 44 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Erasmus » Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:28 pm

For goodness sake, Rowls, to say that Theresa May has sunk to the level of Trump is just ridiculous. What a silly thing to say, you're making a fool of yourself on this one.

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Spijed » Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:47 pm

Erasmus wrote:For goodness sake, Rowls, to say that Theresa May has sunk to the level of Trump is just ridiculous. What a silly thing to say, you're always making a fool of yourself.
Totally agree! ;)

Steve1956
Posts: 17178
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
Been Liked: 6463 times
Has Liked: 2896 times
Location: Fife

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Steve1956 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:23 pm

Is it just me or......?
image.jpeg
image.jpeg (64.98 KiB) Viewed 1813 times
This user liked this post: Steve-Harpers-perm

CombatClaret
Posts: 4381
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1825 times
Has Liked: 929 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by CombatClaret » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:29 pm

It's 100% an embassador's job to give a frank and possibly insulting report of any leader or government as such reports should be classified and in confidence.

These assessments become part of how the UK bases it's reponces & dealings with any country from the US to Iran.
The focus should be who is leaking confidential government communications & not the contents.

elwaclaret
Posts: 8929
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1986 times
Has Liked: 2876 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by elwaclaret » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:39 pm

It is far from ideal that Trump is now effectively hiring and firing British agents. Boris not backing the diplomat may go well inWashington, but this will do him no good whatsoever at home, even amongst Torres, they won’t like the Yanks pushing us around.

BurnleyFC
Posts: 5058
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 am
Been Liked: 1596 times
Has Liked: 888 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by BurnleyFC » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:46 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is the plan. The current ambassador said some entirely honest things about President Airports which is then leaked to a Farage-friendly journalist. This upsets President Snowflake who threatens the possibility of a trade deal which we need to prevent our country sinking into the North sea. It will be sold to us, the general public, that the only way to mend relations with our most important "ally" will be for Trump to have a more friendly, equally morally bankrupt ambassador named by Trump buddy Boris Johnson, and that will be Nigel Farage.
Sounds good to me.

Stayingup
Posts: 5551
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:02 pm
Been Liked: 914 times
Has Liked: 2726 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Stayingup » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:57 pm

Spiral wrote:Jeremy Corbyn plays student union politics, can't lead, has a blindspot on his worldview which leads to him affiliating and aligning with some horrible people and groups, probably can't afford to implement his entire manifesto and has bad political instinct. There. Happy? Good. Now back to the topic. If you're interested in contributing to the subject then you're most welcome, but don't think other people view "insert Jeremy Corbyn argument" as anything less than whataboutism intended to deflect from the subject and absolve yourself of the responsibility of facing up to the reality that there's a cabal of, at best, pretty shady, and at worst, despicable traitors aligning themselves with Putin at the expense of our own country and its values and principles in order to shape the world in the image of authoritarian kleptocrats. Take your whataboutism and shove it.
Who the hell do you think your preaching to Mr?

What about your contribution to the subject matter
Its zero in that tripe posted above.

Out of interest who do you think this cabal you mention at which your guessing at it is? I have my views as to who they sre and I have said. So come tell us.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:01 pm

levraiclaret wrote:Hi Paul

What is your take on the leaking of confidential diplomatic reports?

Do you consider this action to be treason?
Hi levrai, too be honest, I've not been following this a great deal. I've not read what the leaked docs said. I've taken a look this evening on one of the reports - and the comments accompanying the reports, but not read enought to have much of a view.

That being said:
1) I'd hope that correspondence between our embassies and "head office" were carried out securely. If, as I've seen reported, these docs cover a period since Trump was elected.inaugurated - more than 30 months - then that's a very long time to be hacked. If it was "a foreign power" then they are unlikely to have chosen to disclose that they've hacked the FCO or Washington embassy at this time. So, based on this it's more likely it's a leak from the inside.
2) Just because the leak covers 30 months (from above) doesn't mean that the docs have all been collected together and leaked at one time. It's not impossible that the collection of docs have been built up over a period, and not impossible that there is more than one person doing the leaking.
3) Who gains from the leaking? Timing - suggests it's intended to embarrass the elections for leader of Tory party - and hence PM - but, is BJ embarrassable? And, what would it change?
4) Friend of the Ambassador or a foe? What's the point? He's retiring in a few months anyway.
5) I've seen a suggestion that the ambassador wants the publicity so that he can publish his book. Well, I guess he's got some stories to tell now, but aren't the civil servants limited in what they can publish for some time?

You ask do I consider it a treasonable offense. As I've said, I've not read the leaks. Don't we expect that Ambassadors provide views on the countries they are resident in? Are there any secrets in the leaks? Is there anything on a par with wikileaks? I've not heard that there is. If US secrets were leaked, I'd expect the ambassador to have packed and left immediately. Is there anything in the leaks beyond the ambassador's assessments of Trump's admin?

I always think we can learn something by making comparisons. What would we expect are the views of our ambassador in Moscow? or Berlin? or Paris? or Hong Kong? of Beijing? and so on?

I doubt it is treason. I doubt we will be bothered, either way, in a few days time.

elwaclaret
Posts: 8929
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1986 times
Has Liked: 2876 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by elwaclaret » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:05 pm

As usual when the Tories score a major own goal, Labour are busy trying to even the score. Labour moving to remain is just about the worst move they could make. They have already lost a march on the Liberals, it is far to late to try to steal their ground. The Torres will get Brexit through and Labour will be well and truly in no mans land. If they were going to back remain it needed to be at least a year ago.

Add to that the anti Semite troubles, Labour will be lucky to survive the next twelve months as the party we see now.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:07 pm

CombatClaret wrote:It's 100% an embassador's job to give a frank and possibly insulting report of any leader or government as such reports should be classified and in confidence.

These assessments become part of how the UK bases it's reponces & dealings with any country from the US to Iran.
The focus should be who is leaking confidential government communications & not the contents.
Hi Combat, can I suggest a modest amendment to your idea of an ambassador's job: "frank" - yes, "insulting" - no. Certainly, we would expect something written that if the subject of the report were to read it, may not find it "flattering" and may in fact find it "uncomfortable" reading - but, there is a reason why we speak of the "diplomatic corp."

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:07 pm

Probably already posted somewhere above but didn’t realise it was Isabel Oakeshott who broke the story.

Stayingup
Posts: 5551
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:02 pm
Been Liked: 914 times
Has Liked: 2726 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Stayingup » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:11 pm

Whats interesting me and must have ocurred to Turtle too is just who exposed these e-mails. Coukd well be an arch remainer trying to sour relations with the worlds suoer power just prior to an new PM coming in.

There is no way Farage would make a Diplomat. Should never even have been mooted.

elwaclaret
Posts: 8929
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1986 times
Has Liked: 2876 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by elwaclaret » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:14 pm

Stayingup wrote:Whats interesting me and must have ocurred to Turtle too is just who exposed these e-mails. Coukd well be an arch remainer trying to sour relations with the worlds suoer power just prior to an new PM coming in.

There is no way Farage would make a Diplomat. Should never even have been mooted.
One thing surely nobody would ever accuse NF of is being a diplomat. The mind boggles.

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2207
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by JohnMcGreal » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:24 pm

elwaclaret wrote:The Torres will get Brexit through and Labour will be well and truly in no mans land.
No chance. He's been past it for years.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:34 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Sigh

He used an older style phone because he stated the smart phones weren't safe to use in his job.
I was watching an interview a few years ago.

If anyone thinks that smart phones, emails or other electronic forms of communication are fully safe to use, then they're being naive.
Literally no one is arguing that they are fully safe. But if you think that they can't be made pretty close to safe for the purpose of secure communications then you're pretty wrong. Why do you think the Tories are all about ending encryption if encryption doesn't work?

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:36 pm

BurnleyFC wrote:Sounds good to me.

Of course it does, because you're quite happy for Russia to have compromised our senior politicians.

CombatClaret
Posts: 4381
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1825 times
Has Liked: 929 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by CombatClaret » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:06 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Combat, can I suggest a modest amendment to your idea of an ambassador's job: "frank" - yes, "insulting" - no. Certainly, we would expect something written that if the subject of the report were to read it, may not find it "flattering" and may in fact find it "uncomfortable" reading - but, there is a reason why we speak of the "diplomatic corp."
Being truthful and frank can lead to the subject being insulted if it uses any kind of negative character trait. But no diplomat should eschew accuracy & truth for fear of insulting anyone.

Darrok's not called anyone 'Hitler' or a 'Naked Emperor', labels given by US embassies to other heads of states in diplomatic cables.
This user liked this post: nil_desperandum

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3948 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by nil_desperandum » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:25 pm

elwaclaret wrote: The Tories will get Brexit through and Labour will be well and truly in no mans land. .
Don't see it like this at all.
Labour have consistently been opposed to a Tory brexit, (or no deal), but (IMO) would secretly like them to deliver it, since then the Tories will get all the blame for it, and at the subsequent election Labour can say - "we never supported this and voted against it".
Whereas if Labour were in power they'd have exactly the same issue as the Conservatives - trying to deliver something that was promised but is largely undeliverable, (partly because people who voted leave were looking for many different things, and were promised it would be very easy).
This user liked this post: elwaclaret

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:53 pm

CombatClaret wrote:Being truthful and frank can lead to the subject being insulted if it uses any kind of negative character trait. But no diplomat should eschew accuracy & truth for fear of insulting anyone.

Darrok's not called anyone 'Hitler' or a 'Naked Emperor', labels given by US embassies to other heads of states in diplomatic cables.
Hi Combat, I'm confused.... there are a number of posters on the other thread saying that he didn't post anything that was "insulting"... or anything "undiplomatic" - though that is my term and not theirs...

As I've said, I've not read any of his leaks - only basing my comments on what I've read...

Where'd you get the stuff about US "diplomatic cables....?"

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:57 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Combat, I'm confused.... there are a number of posters on the other thread saying that he didn't post anything that was "insulting"... or anything "undiplomatic" - though that is my term and not theirs...

As I've said, I've not read any of his leaks - only basing my comments on what I've read...

Where'd you get the stuff about US "diplomatic cables....?"
Really? Who's saying that?

CombatClaret
Posts: 4381
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1825 times
Has Liked: 929 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by CombatClaret » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:02 am

Paul Waine wrote: Where'd you get the stuff about US "diplomatic cables....?"
That all came out in one of the large wikileaks dumps of 2010. So as you can see it's common place to talk very openly and often unflattering, even insultingly about other leaders or governments because it's as if they were being conducted behind closed doors.

Mr Berlusconi a "feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... s-say.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Paul Waine » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:06 am

I'm watching "The Bank that almost broke Britain." Worth a watch for anyone who want's a view on the UK and the World Financial Crisis.

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1081 times
Has Liked: 4241 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Greenmile » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:27 am

Paul Waine wrote:I'm watching "The Bank that almost broke Britain." Worth a watch for anyone who want's a view on the UK and the World Financial Crisis.
“Look! A squirrel!”
These 3 users liked this post: CombatClaret Swizzlestick longsidepies

Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Rowls » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:29 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:It is the ******* point. The whole point of his job is for him to give highly accurate assessments that cannot be open to misinterpretation. The guy has done absolutely nothing wrong, as previous ambassadors have stated. But i guess they're wrong and that you, constantly pig-ignorant as you are, are right.
Thanks for the stars, Charlie. They really do help give a good impression of your state of mind.

It's an ambassador's job to give accurate reports but you clearly aren't capable of much imaginative thought if you think he has to spill out his guts in a grisly Virginia Woolfe style stream of consciousness every time he composes an email.

As I've said -repeatedly, though you haven't acknowledged it- it isn't his fault because he should have a reasonable expectation the emails should have remained confidential. But that is only mitigating at best in his poor choice of linguistic register.

If this is difficult for you to understand (and it would appear so) let me re-phrase it once more:

He picked bad words. His job was to pick nice words. Even if he thought the words should be secret, he should have picked nice words.

Hope this helps in your understanding of the matter.
aggi wrote:So basically what you're saying is the ambassador should refrain from briefings where they think the UK may already know and use euphemisms rather than being candid. I can't see any confusion arising from that.

I mean there is a chance that you know how to do the ambassador's job better than a hugely experienced diplomat I guess but it seems slim.
"So what you're saying is....."

No.

I said what I said earlier.

I said that ambassadors should use an appropriate register for written communications.

If that's too difficult, I've simplified it for Turtleboy above.
Burnley Ace wrote:The phrase keeps popping up because the absolute stupidity of what you are writing is almost unbelievable. What sort of language should a diplomat use when the medium is secure encrypted emails sent from the embassy prob ably marked confidential or secret, addressed to the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary?

Has Ringo hacked your account?
When sending any written correspondence I should consider that any foreign attache or civil servant should suspect or even presume that their correspondence can (and will) be intercepted and read by foreign intelligence.

This should apply to those working with our closest allies almost as much as it applies to our most dangerous potential enemies. The fact that the leak had come from within the British government is galling but it really underlines the need for vigilance.

If you don't believe in choosing an appropriate register for professional purposes and think that because the email *should* have been encrypted and confidential that the ambassador has *no* case to answer (for the record, I don't blame him for the incident even though his choice of language makes him partially culpable for the incident) then I suggest you attempt to call your boss a c*nt in the same jocular fashion as you might do to mate down the pub. You can update us as to how your employment status progresses as you continue to call your boss a c*nt.

Unless your boss also happens to be your best mate, you might have to quickly reassess your opinion on what constitutes the correct linguistic register (even if you are unfamiliar with the linguistic terminology) and revert to choosing an address and register which respects your boss's superiority. If you want to keep your job, that is.

Similar applies(d) to Sir Kim. If he hadn't openly slagged off Trump, he'd still be in a job. If Sir Kim had managed to re-phrase his email in a manner which didn't so directly poke fun at the Trump administration he would undoubtedly still be in a job and none of us would have heard of him.

As he failed and the email was leaked he had very little choice but to resign.

So should he have lied, as martin_p outrageously claimed he should have?

No. Of course not. There are plenty of rhetorical methods to stress, highlight and make clear opinions, facts and events without losing your cool or using an inappropriate register.

If you want proof - just take a look at this thread, specifically look at my posts and compare them to implodingTurtles posts:

My posts have been written in a formal register. Even when I've been sarcastic and deliberately antagonistic. I've quoted the word "c*nt" but only in the context of somebody else using the word unwisely.

On the contrary, ImplodingTurtle's posts are littered with stars because he has opted for a highly informal register based on either typing out swear words or deliberate typing *s in place of them. His language is course and vernacular and highly prone to base profanities. In essence, he has lost his cool and lost his ability to temper his linguistic register.

Either of these two registers might not be problematic on a message board but then again neither me nor Turtle are the UK ambassador the the United States of America.

Hopefully this augmented explanation will help those of you who have struggled to understand the point that I've been consistently making here.

If you have any further questions I'll endeavour to help but can't promise anything because of my work commitments.

All the best,

Rowls

And for the record, I do *not* advise calling your boss a c*nt; I was making a rhetorical point.
Last edited by Rowls on Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1081 times
Has Liked: 4241 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Greenmile » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:34 am

Rowls wrote:Thanks for the stars, Charlie. They really do help give a good impression of your state of mind.

It's an ambassador's job to give accurate reports but you clearly aren't capable of much imaginative thought if you think he has to spill out his guts in a grisly Virginia Woolfe style stream of consciousness every time he composes an email.

As I've said -repeatedly, though you haven't acknowledged it- it isn't his fault because he should have a reasonable expectation the emails should have remained confidential. But that is only mitigating at best in his poor choice of linguistic register.

If this is difficult for you to understand (and it would appear so) let me re-phrase it once more:

He picked bad words. His job was to pick nice words. Even if he thought the words should be secret, he should have picked nice words.

Hope this helps in your understanding of the matter.



"So what you're saying is....."

No.

I said what I said earlier.

I said that ambassadors should use an appropriate register for written communications.

If that's too difficult, I've simplified it for Turtleboy above.



When sending any written correspondence I should consider that any foreign attache or civil servant should suspect or even presume that their correspondence can (and will) be intercepted and read by foreign intelligence.

This should apply to those working with our closest allies almost as much as it applies to our most dangerous potential enemies. The fact that the leak had come from within the British government is galling but it really underlines the need for vigilance.

If you don't believe in choosing an appropriate register for professional purposes and think that because the email *should* have been encrypted and confidential that the ambassador has *no* case to answer (for the record, I don't blame him for the incident even though his choice of language makes him partially culpable for the incident) then I suggest you attempt to call your boss a c*nt in the same jocular fashion as you might do to mate down the pub. You can update us as to how your employment status progresses as you continue to call your boss a c*nt.

Unless your boss also happens to be your best mate, you might have to quickly reassess your opinion on what constitutes the correct linguistic register (even if you are unfamiliar with the linguistic terminology) and revert to choosing an address which respects your boss's superiority. If you want to keep your job, that is.

Similar applies to Sir Kim. If he hadn't slagged off Trump, he'd still be in a job. If Sir Kim had managed to re-phrase his email in a manner which did so directly poke fun at the Trump administration he would undoubtedly still be in a job and none of us would have heard of him.

As he failed, he has had to resign.

So should he have lied, as martin_p outrageously claimed he should have?

No. Of course not. There are plenty of rhetorical methods to stress, highlight and make clear opinions, facts and events without losing your cool of using an inappropriate register.

If you want proof - just take a look at this thread, specifically my posts and implodingTurtles posts:

My posts have been written in a formal register. Even when I've been sarcastic and deliberately antagonistic. I've quoted the word "c*nt" but only in the context of somebody else using the word unwisely.

On the contrary, ImplodingTurtle's posts are littered with stars because he has opted for a highly informal register based on either typing out swear words or deliberate typing *s in place of them.

Either of these registers might not be problematic on a message board but then again neither me nor Turtle are the UK ambassador the the United States of America.

Hopefully this augmented explanation will help those of you who have struggled to understand the point that I've been consistently making here.

If you have any further questions I'll endeavour to help but can't promise anything because of my work commitments.

All the best,

Rowls

And for the record, I do *not* advise calling your boss a c*nt; I was making a rhetorical point.
Why don’t you tell us the diplomatic phrasing you think he should have used to inform our govt that Trump is inept and insecure, given that you seem to think the words “inept” and “insecure” are the equivalent of calling your boss a c*nt.
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Spiral » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:40 am

Trump isn't his boss. You're talking b0llocks.
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

CombatClaret
Posts: 4381
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1825 times
Has Liked: 929 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by CombatClaret » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:41 am

The winners right now are the leakers as we all debate what was said by a man doing his job instead of asking who leaked it and who it benefits.

Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Rowls » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:44 am

Greenmile wrote:Why don’t you tell us the diplomatic phrasing you think he should have used to inform our govt that Trump is inept and insecure, given that you seem to think the words “inept” and “insecure” are the equivalent of calling your boss a c*nt.
If you were capable of reading between the lines you migh realise that I *have* demonstrated very, very clearly how easy it is to eviscerate without spilling over into undiplomatic language.

Also, you have misunderstood entirely if you thought I was drawing any kind of equivalence between expressing ineptitude and insecurity and referring to your boss by a profanity.

I shall leave it to you to try and work out the metaphor I was drawing upon; although it might be exasperating for you that I leave it unexplained, it only strengthens my case to leave it that way.

As the ambassador didn't say, 'Work it out for yourself.'

Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Rowls » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:44 am

Spiral wrote:Trump isn't his boss. You're talking b0llocks.
Who's this aimed at?

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by aggi » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:46 am

Rowls wrote:When sending any written correspondence I should consider that any foreign attache or civil servant should suspect or even presume that their correspondence can (and will) be intercepted and read by foreign intelligence.

This should apply to those working with our closest allies almost as much as it applies to our most dangerous potential enemies. The fact that the leak had come from within the British government is galling but it really underlines the need for vigilance.

If you don't believe in choosing an appropriate register for professional purposes and think that because the email *should* have been encrypted and confidential that the ambassador has *no* case to answer (for the record, I don't blame him for the incident even though his choice of language makes him partially culpable for the incident) then I suggest you attempt to call your boss a c*nt in the same jocular fashion as you might do to mate down the pub. You can update us as to how your employment status progresses as you continue to call your boss a c*nt.
I'm impressed that you know more about how this works than the bloke who used to be the UK's National Security Adviser.

A couple of points. Trump is in no way the UK ambassador's boss and calling someone "inept and insecure" is in no way calling them a c£nt. Your whole analogy is inept.

Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Rowls » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:51 am

aggi wrote:I'm impressed that you know more about how this works than the bloke who used to be the UK's National Security Adviser.
Clearly, writing about the US does not equate to a security risk between the US and ourselves. But it is clearly a diplomatic risk as it evidenced by this case.
aggi wrote:A couple of points. Trump is in no way the UK ambassador's boss and calling someone "inept and insecure" is in no way calling them a c£nt. Your whole analogy is inept.
I shall quote myself to address this point and I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was posted before you responded.
Rowls wrote:you have misunderstood entirely if you thought I was drawing any kind of equivalence between expressing ineptitude and insecurity and referring to your boss by a profanity.

I shall leave it to you to try and work out the metaphor I was drawing upon; although it might be exasperating for you that I leave it unexplained, it only strengthens my case to leave it that way.

As the ambassador didn't say, 'Work it out for yourself.'

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Spiral » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:52 am

CombatClaret wrote:The winners right now are the leakers as we all debate what was said by a man doing his job instead of asking who leaked it and who it benefits.
I composed quite a lengthy post about that very fact before sacking it off after remembering that it's Rowls and that he's not the least bit interested in debating in good faith. Framing the debate (or in this case, banging the loudest drum you have) around the content rather than the machinations behind the leak (for entirely obvious reasons, considering the politics of the person attempting to chokehold the thread) is a ploy professional propagandists would be proud of; and here he is, shilling for free while the reputation of the country rots and its next PM kowtows to a foreigner.
This user liked this post: longsidepies

Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Ambassador Farage

Post by Rowls » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:53 am

On that, I bid you goodnight and God bless.

Thanks for playing along fellows. I hope you have better arguments next time.

Post Reply