Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
I believe my questions about training, qualifications, and experience are valid, as they would be if someone was making a case on knowledge in other areas (IT, building, medicine, etc) - for you to dismiss as an attack on your credibility does more, imho, to lessen your credibility than a factual answer would have. For instance, if we were discussing IT matters, my 30 years experience would have a bearing on my credibility (imho).
Remember the old saying "a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client".  |
Okay, okay. I shall have to roll with the blows and not succumb to journo bait. Underlying what I responded is the need to protect my position in court and the ever-present possibility when taking on a corporate that they will use the services of PR agents whose role is to destroy credibility.
Quote:
Regarding GCHQ, I think you will find that your statements are a sub-optimal interpretation of the facts - GCHQ actively "access data without prior agreement" (your term) both in this country and others; this is a fact, not a supposition (been there, done that  ).
|
Then they must remain suboptimal and silent on expansion. If you reached as far as Pendley Manor you will know why.