Scummings going by Xmas..... Boris next year.

[bimboman]

Nice deflection from the Tory boys.

Majority of the country are Tory now.

[AND-y]

Nice deflection from the Tory boys.

Majority of the country are Tory now.

Yeah?

[bimboman]

Nice deflection from the Tory boys.

Majority of the country are Tory now.

Yeah?

Every poll showing them over 50% now Andy. Everyone knows we dodged a bullet in December...

[Glaston]

Nice deflection from the Tory boys.

Majority of the country are Tory now.

Yeah?

Where is the Brexit party vote of over 600k?

Fake table from the BBC

[TheDocForgotHisLogon]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

[Insane_Homer]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

[blindcider]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

If his symptoms were mild then 3 days is not atypical for recovery, at least based on 3 people I know that have had mild symptoms.

[Enzedder]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

Praise the lord - and he's a week earlier than Jesus

[MrJonno]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

If his symptoms were mild then 3 days is not atypical for recovery, at least based on 3 people I know that have had mild symptoms.

Were they tested? The amount of people I know who have said (and I'm paraphraising) "I had cold/flu like symptoms during cold and flu season so I think I've already had it" is surprising (though I've said it to tbf before realising that I might just have had a cold).

I'm not saying they didn't have it, and obviously some people have a very mild case but I doubt everyone who thinks they have had it, have had it.

[Sefton]

They were tested.

[blindcider]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

If his symptoms were mild then 3 days is not atypical for recovery, at least based on 3 people I know that have had mild symptoms.

Were they tested? The amount of people I know who have said (and I'm paraphraising) "I had cold/flu like symptoms during cold and flu season so I think I've already had it" is surprising (though I've said it to tbf before realising that I might just have had a cold).

I'm not saying they didn't have it, and obviously some people have a very mild case but I doubt everyone who thinks they have had it, have had it.

No, but one additional colleague was tested for it and has had a few complications and they were all on one of the last business trips together so it is highly probable

[TheDocForgotHisLogon]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

Thanks. No mention of his condition anywhere on the front pages - thought that was odd.

How's Classic Dom and the rest of them?

[Openside]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

If his symptoms were mild then 3 days is not atypical for recovery, at least based on 3 people I know that have had mild symptoms.

Ditto all the people who had had it round us reckon 3 days was all it took.

[Anonymous 1]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

Thanks. No mention of his condition anywhere on the front pages - thought that was odd.

How's Classic Dom and the rest of them?

There is no way the press wouldn't be asking ministers about him in the TV interviews unless they had agreed not to do so.

[TheDocForgotHisLogon]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

Thanks. No mention of his condition anywhere on the front pages - thought that was odd.

How's Classic Dom and the rest of them?

There is no way the press wouldn't be asking ministers about him in the TV interviews unless they had agreed not to do so.

So what's the sauce for the three-day recovery?

[message #2527204]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

Thanks. No mention of his condition anywhere on the front pages - thought that was odd.

How's Classic Dom and the rest of them?

There is no way the press wouldn't be asking ministers about him in the TV interviews unless they had agreed not to do so.

They make an announcement every day that he's ok and chairing meetings via video conferencing.

[Saint]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

Thanks. No mention of his condition anywhere on the front pages - thought that was odd.

How's Classic Dom and the rest of them?

There is no way the press wouldn't be asking ministers about him in the TV interviews unless they had agreed not to do so.

They make an announcement every day that he's ok and chairing meetings via video conferencing.

And tweeting pictures of these VC meteings onZoom with the meeting number prominently advertised. GCHQ are doing their nut apparently

[Glaston]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

If his symptoms were mild then 3 days is not atypical for recovery, at least based on 3 people I know that have had mild symptoms.

Ditto all the people who had had it round us reckon 3 days was all it took.

Its possible I may have had it, very mild but 8 days in and I still feel tired, my muscles feel really weak, feeling cold and my long term cough/lung clearing has got worse.

I still have the heating on FFS, usually turned off 15th march every year.

Bizarre thing is I have started drinking coffee.

[TheDocForgotHisLogon]

And tweeting pictures of these VC meteings onZoom with the meeting number prominently advertised. GCHQ are doing their nut apparently

For fudge's sake. If our enemies find out how hopeless the Cabinet is...

[message #2527204]

And tweeting pictures of these VC meteings onZoom with the meeting number prominently advertised. GCHQ are doing their nut apparently

For fudge's sake. If our enemies find out how hopeless the Cabinet is...

Eric Yuan is Chinese isn't he? That will get the conspiracy lads going on the backlash thread.

[message #2527204]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

If his symptoms were mild then 3 days is not atypical for recovery, at least based on 3 people I know that have had mild symptoms.

Ditto all the people who had had it round us reckon 3 days was all it took.

Its possible I may have had it, very mild but 8 days in and I still feel tired, my muscles feel really weak, feeling cold and my long term cough/lung clearing has got worse.

I still have the heating on FFS, usually turned off 15th march every year.

Bizarre thing is I have started drinking coffee.

Can we add that to the list of symptoms along with no taste and smell?

[Saint]

And tweeting pictures of these VC meteings onZoom with the meeting number prominently advertised. GCHQ are doing their nut apparently

For fudge's sake. If our enemies find out how hopeless the Cabinet is...

Eric Yuan is Chinese isn't he? That will get the conspiracy lads going on the backlash thread.

Born and raised in China. Moved to America in the early 90s, been a US citizen for god knows how long.

[Yer Man]

Eric Yuan is Chinese isn't he? That will get the conspiracy lads going on the backlash thread.

Born and raised in China. Moved to America in the early 90s, been a US citizen for god knows how long.

So doubly suspicious!

[Derwyn]

So Boris, then. Has he been heard from in visuals or audio? Any news on his condition?

He's done a miracle 3 day recovery.

If his symptoms were mild then 3 days is not atypical for recovery, at least based on 3 people I know that have had mild symptoms.

Ditto all the people who had had it round us reckon 3 days was all it took.

Were they tested?

[Lobby]

Eric Yuan is Chinese isn't he? That will get the conspiracy lads going on the backlash thread.

Born and raised in China. Moved to America in the early 90s, been a US citizen for god knows how long.

So doubly suspicious!

I understand Cabinet meetings will be on Skype for Business rather than Zoom now, because of concerns about security.

[TheDocForgotHisLogon]

I understand Cabinet meetings will be on Skype for Business rather than Zoom now, because of concerns about security.

How the utter fudge is it that the spooks haven't commissioned a Zoom-a-like that's propper secure. I mean c'mon tae fudge.

[Saint]

I understand Cabinet meetings will be on Skype for Business rather than Zoom now, because of concerns about security.

How the utter fudge is it that the spooks haven't commissioned a Zoom-a-like that's propper secure. I mean c'mon tae fudge.

They have. There's an extremely secure VC platform built by GCHQ that;s available for all government departments to use. It's a fair bit more expensive than Zoom/Webex/teams, but it;s extremely secure, while also allowing remote parties to dial in. The Cabinet Office chose to purchase something cheaper.

Moving from Zoom to SfB though is really just picking a different poison.

[TheDocForgotHisLogon]

I understand Cabinet meetings will be on Skype for Business rather than Zoom now, because of concerns about security.

How the utter fudge is it that the spooks haven't commissioned a Zoom-a-like that's propper secure. I mean c'mon tae fudge.

They have. There's an extremely secure VC platform built by GCHQ that;s available for all government departments to use. It's a fair bit more expensive than Zoom/Webex/teams, but it;s extremely secure, while also allowing remote parties to dial in. The Cabinet Office chose to purchase something cheaper.

Moving from Zoom to SfB though is really just picking a different poison.

Jesus. Thanks for the info.

Who's getting fired? E.g. if the GCHQ (clue's in the title) / MI5 / MI6 aren't influential enough to get in there and scream DON'T! then what are they for?

[Saint]

I understand Cabinet meetings will be on Skype for Business rather than Zoom now, because of concerns about security.

How the utter fudge is it that the spooks haven't commissioned a Zoom-a-like that's propper secure. I mean c'mon tae fudge.

They have. There's an extremely secure VC platform built by GCHQ that;s available for all government departments to use. It's a fair bit more expensive than Zoom/Webex/teams, but it;s extremely secure, while also allowing remote parties to dial in. The Cabinet Office chose to purchase something cheaper.

Moving from Zoom to SfB though is really just picking a different poison.

Jesus. Thanks for the info.

Who's getting fired? E.g. if the GCHQ (clue's in the title) / MI5 / MI6 aren't influential enough to get in there and scream DON'T! then what are they for?

When it comes to this stuff, GCHQ purely has an advisory role - it has no power to enforce security standards on the rest of government. Each department is supposed to determine it's own requirements, evaluate possible suppliers, and is directed to obtain best "value for money". This being government procurement, "value for money" all too often devolves down to "cheapest", especially when procurement managers are generalists rather than technical specialists.

[happyhooker]

I understand Cabinet meetings will be on Skype for Business rather than Zoom now, because of concerns about security.

How the utter fudge is it that the spooks haven't commissioned a Zoom-a-like that's propper secure. I mean c'mon tae fudge.

They have. There's an extremely secure VC platform built by GCHQ that;s available for all government departments to use. It's a fair bit more expensive than Zoom/Webex/teams, but it;s extremely secure, while also allowing remote parties to dial in. The Cabinet Office chose to purchase something cheaper.

Moving from Zoom to SfB though is really just picking a different poison.

Jesus. Thanks for the info.

Who's getting fired? E.g. if the GCHQ (clue's in the title) / MI5 / MI6 aren't influential enough to get in there and scream DON'T! then what are they for?

They can, and do, shout DON'T, as much as they can, but this lot know better and they can't force them to act on their advice.

There's a huge amount of frustration about this atmo, but they can't air it and keep their jobs to deal with the current crisis. Expect a lot of shit to come out when this is contained.

[TheDocForgotHisLogon]

Who's getting fired? E.g. if the GCHQ (clue's in the title) / MI5 / MI6 aren't influential enough to get in there and scream DON'T! then what are they for?

When it comes to this stuff, GCHQ purely has an advisory role - it has no power to enforce security standards on the rest of government. Each department is supposed to determine it's own requirements, evaluate possible suppliers, and is directed to obtain best "value for money". This being government procurement, "value for money" all too often devolves down to "cheapest", especially when procurement managers are generalists rather than technical specialists.

Yeah I get that, same here. Point was - if GCSB isn't influential enough to stop Cabinet live-streaming to Russia, what's its point?

Edit - it's.

[Saint]

Who's getting fired? E.g. if the GCHQ (clue's in the title) / MI5 / MI6 aren't influential enough to get in there and scream DON'T! then what are they for?

When it comes to this stuff, GCHQ purely has an advisory role - it has no power to enforce security standards on the rest of government. Each department is supposed to determine it's own requirements, evaluate possible suppliers, and is directed to obtain best "value for money". This being government procurement, "value for money" all too often devolves down to "cheapest", especially when procurement managers are generalists rather than technical specialists.

Yeah I get that, same here. Point was - if GCSB isn't influential enough to stop Cabinet live-streaming to Russia, what's it's point?

This is nowhere near it's primary role.

[TheDocForgotHisLogon]

Who's getting fired? E.g. if the GCHQ (clue's in the title) / MI5 / MI6 aren't influential enough to get in there and scream DON'T! then what are they for?

When it comes to this stuff, GCHQ purely has an advisory role - it has no power to enforce security standards on the rest of government. Each department is supposed to determine it's own requirements, evaluate possible suppliers, and is directed to obtain best "value for money". This being government procurement, "value for money" all too often devolves down to "cheapest", especially when procurement managers are generalists rather than technical specialists.

Yeah I get that, same here. Point was - if GCSB isn't influential enough to stop Cabinet live-streaming to Russia, what's it's point?

This is nowhere near it's primary role.

OK then, and good to talk to someone informed... original question - who needs to get fired? It's someone's role in government to advise on security inc. security of comms. They're either useless or not influential.

[Saint]

Who's getting fired? E.g. if the GCHQ (clue's in the title) / MI5 / MI6 aren't influential enough to get in there and scream DON'T! then what are they for?

When it comes to this stuff, GCHQ purely has an advisory role - it has no power to enforce security standards on the rest of government. Each department is supposed to determine it's own requirements, evaluate possible suppliers, and is directed to obtain best "value for money". This being government procurement, "value for money" all too often devolves down to "cheapest", especially when procurement managers are generalists rather than technical specialists.

Yeah I get that, same here. Point was - if GCSB isn't influential enough to stop Cabinet live-streaming to Russia, what's it's point?

This is nowhere near it's primary role.

OK then, and good to talk to someone informed... original question - who needs to get fired? It's someone's role in government to advise on security inc. security of comms. They're either useless or not influential.

It's government and the civil service. There's too many people involved that the blame will be shared around sufficiently enough that no-one is responsible enough to be fired.

[redderneck]

Hello Mrs. Queen, Seamus here from GCHQ. Just wanted to advise you to lop the focking head off that samoyed-headed turd in No.10 when things have quietened down a bit, ok dearie? Oh and I've lined up the full series of One Man and His Dog for you on Netflix, you just need to flick down to HDMI 2 and make sure you'r NordVPN is set to The Malvinas. Ta ra now.

[Lorthern Nights]

I understand Cabinet meetings will be on Skype for Business rather than Zoom now, because of concerns about security.

How the utter fudge is it that the spooks haven't commissioned a Zoom-a-like that's propper secure. I mean c'mon tae fudge.

They have. There's an extremely secure VC platform built by GCHQ that;s available for all government departments to use. It's a fair bit more expensive than Zoom/Webex/teams, but it;s extremely secure, while also allowing remote parties to dial in. The Cabinet Office chose to purchase something cheaper.

Moving from Zoom to SfB though is really just picking a different poison.

Jesus. Thanks for the info.

Who's getting fired? E.g. if the GCHQ (clue's in the title) / MI5 / MI6 aren't influential enough to get in there and scream DON'T! then what are they for?

When it comes to this stuff, GCHQ purely has an advisory role - it has no power to enforce security standards on the rest of government. Each department is supposed to determine it's own requirements, evaluate possible suppliers, and is directed to obtain best "value for money". This being government procurement, "value for money" all too often devolves down to "cheapest", especially when procurement managers are generalists rather than technical specialists.

Where does the extra cost come in from using the one built by GCHQ if it is already used in parts of the government? It must be cheaper than even the basic zoom subscription or am i missing something?

[TheDocForgotHisLogon]

Well, that's the twatwaffle off to hospital, and a lot of furious spinning going on.

[Gospel]

Well, that's the twatwaffle off to hospital, and a lot of furious spinning going on.

What is the spin?

[TheDocForgotHisLogon]

Well, that's the twatwaffle off to hospital, and a lot of furious spinning going on.

What is the spin?

'Precautionary", "he's got a temperature", "his hand's very much on the tiller". It's all upbeat and reassuring from the machine, so it's reasonable to believe the opposite. Plus, you'd hardly drag your PM off to hospital in the current circumstances just because he had a bit of a temperature - you'd have near-hospital levels of care in No. 11.

So, Raab's in charge. Jesus.

[Saint]

How the utter fudge is it that the spooks haven't commissioned a Zoom-a-like that's propper secure. I mean c'mon tae fudge.

They have. There's an extremely secure VC platform built by GCHQ that;s available for all government departments to use. It's a fair bit more expensive than Zoom/Webex/teams, but it;s extremely secure, while also allowing remote parties to dial in. The Cabinet Office chose to purchase something cheaper.

Moving from Zoom to SfB though is really just picking a different poison.

Jesus. Thanks for the info.

Who's getting fired? E.g. if the GCHQ (clue's in the title) / MI5 / MI6 aren't influential enough to get in there and scream DON'T! then what are they for?

When it comes to this stuff, GCHQ purely has an advisory role - it has no power to enforce security standards on the rest of government. Each department is supposed to determine it's own requirements, evaluate possible suppliers, and is directed to obtain best "value for money". This being government procurement, "value for money" all too often devolves down to "cheapest", especially when procurement managers are generalists rather than technical specialists.

Where does the extra cost come in from using the one built by GCHQ if it is already used in parts of the government? It must be cheaper than even the basic zoom subscription or am i missing something?

Just saw this. I know a bit about what's been built by GCHQ so the costs are licensing coats, plus ultimately a scaling problem

1- licensing costs. The licensing works much like Zoom/Webex etc. So you have to pay a license per host on the system. A host license for on-premise kit is perpetual ( at least for the way it's built at the moment) with an annual maintenance cost. Over around. 5 years or so, the cost for buying the license + support works out approximately the same as 5 years of subscription, but below that it's cheaper to subscribe. Given that this stuff is being procured on a short term basis, the cloud subscription looks massively cheaper

2 - hardware scaling, Video conferencing is massively hardware intensive, to a pit that it's hard to explain to a layperson just how expensive it is. Historically this has worked for cloud - the average conferencing host utilises their subscription for as little as 2% of their working time, so the larger you scale you can see how the more efficient you can be. The cloud providers were caught out a bit when suddenly that % changed to figure closer to 50%; Cisco provisioned over 15,000 additional virtual servers just in the UK to cope with this. But with a relatively small on premise solution you can't even get the benefits of scale that you get from 50% usage. So you have to over-provision very expensive HW to support a relatively small user base. Ballpark, you need to budget around £15,000 for every 200 VC participants (not hosts)

There's additional costs to incur to provision support for users outside of your organization that you might want to invite as well.

VC is one of the applications that the cloud is almost perfectly designed to solve, but not all cloud is created equally