Brits were plenty fucking happy with big govt after WW2 and well into the '70s.

The mania for self-manufacture is a Yank thing really, I still don't see it as especially pertinent here.

I think that comes under parochial nativist shit. Loadsamoney was a figure of ridicule; there's a reason our most conspicuously Successful celebs fuck off to the States.

Compromise.  It's the art of the deal.

It's a little more political than that. What the govt have effectively said is that Huawei cannot play any real or significant part in the 5G networks being built out by EE, Telefonica etc.

Telefonica will already need to cancel / significantly change ongoing systems roll-outs (SMSCs manufactured by Huawei, for example, or the Online Charging System which is the foundation of how users get correctly charged for network activity) - this is Huawei bread and butter.

So, publicly, expect headlines like "Boris socks it to the US", or "US gets snubbed in attempts to persuade govt to reject Huawei"; whereas privately, they can go to the US and say "right then we've done what you've asked". It's win win for Johnson and co.

There was a pretty horrific Panorama last night - only caught the end of it - seems to be buildings left empty after the crash being bought up and turned into housing to address the housing crisis  -they looked like something out of Eraserhead to live in.

They are also moving people on probation (I didn't realise that service had been partially privitised - what the fuck is going on in this country?) straight into them with a resulting mix of inhabitants that may not work - tidbits about data security being compromised etc.

It's like a segment out of Gilliam's Brazil.

davyK wrote:

And re Huawei - the UK spooks poked through the firmware - so what is the problem with using that equipment?

If you assume that due diligence has been done, then the only problem is that using it would piss off Trump and jeopardise UK/US relations. And as things stand, Johnson’s grand plan seems be to rely on US trade and US military alliance.

Re: Huawei, maybe it's not just China potentially demanding access that's the problem?

Luckily for us we picked both, since were using Huawei, Siemens and someone else to do the infrastructure.

In Brexit Britain, all orifices are open for business.

Someone pls check how many ex conservative dickheads are on the board at Siemens and that other company.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/04/camerons-bodyguard-suspended-for-leaving-gun-in-plane-toilet

Unbelievable that they could leave a gun behind, they should treat their firearms with the same care as if it were their own child.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

I asked someone reliable and basically the UK has to choose between using 5G that can get back doored by China or using 5G that can get back-doored by the US. Another way to look at it is, we know we are gonna get ass fucked. So we have to choose between being ass fucked by an american dude or a chinese d--- Think I'll stop there actually

Yup. The US are only kicking up because they want all the back doors. It isn't just the network we need to be worrying about though - there are back doors all the way up the technology stack.

Foe example the same can be said of most mainstream cyber security sols (av, etc). Many of those are developed in Israel.

mistercrayon wrote:

I mean so much of our net infrastructure goes through Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook now.

Which all goes straight to the NSA, as that nice Mr Snowden showed us a few years ago.

So the US have their back doors already. Why worry about more?

No 10 refuses to comment on PM's views of racial IQ

I mean, what? This is the freest of freebies. "No, it's bollocks that." Under Johnson you could even get away with that phrasing. They even went out of their way to distance themselves from a member of the Government saying it wasn't the view of the Government:

Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, said over the weekend that Sabisky’s comments were “not my views and those are not the views of the government”.

However, the prime minister’s deputy official spokesman said Shapps was speaking only for himself when he made that statement.