Britain spied on foreign diplomats during G20 meetings, docs show

[News_Editor]

LONDON, ENGLAND (BNO NEWS) -- Britain intercepted phone calls and monitored computers used by foreign diplomats who took part in G20 summit meetings in London in 2009, according to the British newspaper The Guardian which obtained classified documents from American whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The bombshell revelations were made public just hours before Britain began hosting the G8 summit in Northern Ireland. It claims the British intelligence agency GCHQ made great efforts to intercept the communications of foreign diplomats during G20 meetings in April and September 2009.

Snowden, a 29-year-old American who worked for defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton as an infrastructure analyst for the National Security Agency (NSA), provided the classified documents to The Guardian. He was also the source behind recent newspaper articles that revealed previously unknown details about the U.S. government's secret surveillance programs.

The documents, including a GCHQ document describing 'recent successes', said the agency used "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations. It included hacking into BlackBerry devices used by foreign officials to monitor their e-mail messages and phone calls.

The intelligence agency also set up fake internet cafes at which the computers were bugged with key-logging software and a program to intercept incoming e-mails. Some of the information was fed in near real-time to dozens of analysts, who in turn provided a summary of the results to British officials.

The documents suggest the spying was carried out purely from a political objective, and not to investigate any kind of criminal offense. "The GCHQ intent is to ensure that intelligence relevant to HMG's (the British government's) desired outcomes for its presidency of the G20 reaches customers at the right time and in a form which allows them to make full use of it," according to an GCHQ document marked "top secret."

Among those targeted by the agency was Turkish Finance Minister Mehmet ÅžimÅek and up to 15 other officials from his delegation. The documents make clear the spying was to find out Ankara's attitudes to financial regulation and reform, as well as to determine Turkey's willingness to co-operate with the rest of the G20 nations.

The British government refused to comment on the report, but Turkey's Foreign Ministry described the claims as "alarming" and raised the issue with British Ambassador David Reddaway. "The British authorities are expected to present an official and satisfactory explanation on this issue," a spokesperson said.

The ministry added: "If there is even the slightest truth to any of these claims contained in this news report, this will evidently constitute a scandal primarily for the country concerned. In an environment where mutual trust, respect and transparency should be essential for international cooperation, such act by an allied country would clearly be deemed unacceptable, should the news report turn out to be true."

(Copyright 2013 by BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. Info: [email protected].)

[Credo]

The thread on the US contractor, Snowden, has 14 pages and this one thread has garnered virtually no interest. Rather interesting.

[antfish]

The thread on the US contractor, Snowden, has 14 pages and this one thread has garnered virtually no interest. Rather interesting.

this issue is mentioned and discussed in the comments in the 14 pages thread. it is just another Snowden leak.

[chuckd]

While it may be dismissed as just another Snowden leak, it would seem to me that there should be considerably more interest shown by our forum brothers from the UK about the actions of their own government rather than the actions of the US government.

The leak of the information should not overshadow the actual events that were performed by the GCHQ.

[iancnx]

Guys, don't be so naive.... This goes on in every capital city in the world bar none. And GCHQ is an integral constituent of the Club of five, USA being one of the club!

[iancnx]

It is in the public domain...... Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

[Steely Dan]

This certainly is turning into year of the leak.

[wolf5370]

While it may be dismissed as just another Snowden leak, it would seem to me that there should be considerably more interest shown by our forum brothers from the UK about the actions of their own government rather than the actions of the US government.

The leak of the information should not overshadow the actual events that were performed by the GCHQ.

If Britain was spying then so were the Americans - their intelligence agencies have been entwined and working together (especially with respect to Europe) for many years - this is well know and not news to anyone I would suggest. How else does someone from an internal counter intelligence agency in the US know about it in order to leak it?

I am also pretty sure just about every other member of the G20 were doing likewise and will do so in the future at every other summit too. Important information would be using a military grade encrypted line and a clean room - everyone knows the game.

//Edit: 2009, how many officials are going to be using internet cafes instead of their secure laptops?

Edited June 18, 2013 by wolf5370

[antfish]

While it may be dismissed as just another Snowden leak, it would seem to me that there should be considerably more interest shown by our forum brothers from the UK about the actions of their own government rather than the actions of the US government.

The leak of the information should not overshadow the actual events that were performed by the GCHQ.

I never met a British man who was much in support or even proud of the politics of their government. that makes political discussions with them easier.

The British spies must be pissed that the American spies could not keep that secret secret. hahaha. but that means also that there is a USA-UK cooperation.

this case may cause some diplomatic uproar. The Turkish Finance Minister will be not amused and so will be other diplomats.

But then i guess it is probably normal spy business. Like the good old bug in the flower vase in a cafe that is a known spy meeting place. agencies observing foreign diplomats who also work for a agency, observing and collect information.

I think there is a difference if one of these agencies set up a bugged internet cafe to spy on participants of an international meeting or if an agency set a surveillance program to scan almost any electronic communication in the internet and by telephone of almost everyone. that is like the Stasi.

[antfish]

//Edit: 2009, how many officials are going to be using internet cafes instead of their secure laptops?

1. the innocents

2. the double agents

3. the whistleblowers

4. the paranoids

[theblether]

While it may be dismissed as just another Snowden leak, it would seem to me that there should be considerably more interest shown by our forum brothers from the UK about the actions of their own government rather than the actions of the US government.

The leak of the information should not overshadow the actual events that were performed by the GCHQ.

I'm delighted that the British government " spied " on the other governments..........it's called living in the real world.

[Exsexyman]

While it may be dismissed as just another Snowden leak, it would seem to me that there should be considerably more interest shown by our forum brothers from the UK about the actions of their own government rather than the actions of the US government.

The leak of the information should not overshadow the actual events that were performed by the GCHQ.

I never met a British man who was much in support or even proud of the politics of their government. that makes political discussions with them easier.

The British spies must be pissed that the American spies could not keep that secret secret. hahaha. but that means also that there is a USA-UK cooperation.

this case may cause some diplomatic uproar. The Turkish Finance Minister will be not amused and so will be other diplomats.

But then i guess it is probably normal spy business. Like the good old bug in the flower vase in a cafe that is a known spy meeting place. agencies observing foreign diplomats who also work for a agency, observing and collect information.

I think there is a difference if one of these agencies set up a bugged internet cafe to spy on participants of an international meeting or if an agency set a surveillance program to scan almost any electronic communication in the internet and by telephone of almost everyone. that is like the Stasi.

I think that people in Britain are perhaps more openly cynical about the actions and trustworthiness of their governments than are people in the US. Especially when it comes to foreign policy. Increasingly over the years Britain has ceased to have an independent foreign policy, we never take the lead on any thing of importance unless it has been approved by Washington. The reality is that US foreign policy is Britain's foreign policy, for better or worse, with Britain very much in the role of junior partner in the so called "special relationship". This is probably why Britain will never truly be at the heart of Europe, the other prominent European countries still fiercely guard their sovereign independence whereas Britain has long ago been perceived to have effectively compromised theirs. Hence the disquiet amongst some European allies at the revelations that the UK were spying on their delegates e mails, telephone conversations etc. The USA and UK and possibly Russia are probably the only ones with the technical expertise to do this. Regarding the wholesale eavesdropping on private citizens, the way it probably has been done, to get round the technical illegalities of spying on their own citizens, is that GCHQ does the spying on US citizens, and the NSA does the same on UK citizens. The two organizations are inextricably linked, two cheeks of the same arse. To the cynical paranoids in government this is the perfect way round it, and makes it all legal and above board. The obvious immorality of it just doesn't make a blip on their radar.

[theblether]

I agree that we are innately cynical, but I don't agree that our foreign policy is dictated by Washington. One example would be the refusal to send troops into the Vietnam War, and more recently, if left to Washington we would meekly hand over the Falklands to Argentina.

The aims of the US and the UK are broadly the same, but not exactly the same.

[chuckd]

While it may be dismissed as just another Snowden leak, it would seem to me that there should be considerably more interest shown by our forum brothers from the UK about the actions of their own government rather than the actions of the US government.

The leak of the information should not overshadow the actual events that were performed by the GCHQ.

If Britain was spying then so were the Americans - their intelligence agencies have been entwined and working together (especially with respect to Europe) for many years - this is well know and not news to anyone I would suggest. How else does someone from an internal counter intelligence agency in the US know about it in order to leak it?

I am also pretty sure just about every other member of the G20 were doing likewise and will do so in the future at every other summit too. Important information would be using a military grade encrypted line and a clean room - everyone knows the game.

//Edit: 2009, how many officials are going to be using internet cafes instead of their secure laptops?

I've never claimed the US wasn't spying. In fact I have a very good friend working for one of those "initial" US government agencies as we speak. He is somewhere in Europe but I ain't gonna tell you where.

I am merely asking why so many Europeans, particularly Brits, come down so hard on the US government when their government is doing the same thing.

What's good for the goose, etc, etc, etc.

[theblether]

While it may be dismissed as just another Snowden leak, it would seem to me that there should be considerably more interest shown by our forum brothers from the UK about the actions of their own government rather than the actions of the US government.

The leak of the information should not overshadow the actual events that were performed by the GCHQ.

If Britain was spying then so were the Americans - their intelligence agencies have been entwined and working together (especially with respect to Europe) for many years - this is well know and not news to anyone I would suggest. How else does someone from an internal counter intelligence agency in the US know about it in order to leak it?

I am also pretty sure just about every other member of the G20 were doing likewise and will do so in the future at every other summit too. Important information would be using a military grade encrypted line and a clean room - everyone knows the game.

//Edit: 2009, how many officials are going to be using internet cafes instead of their secure laptops?

I've never claimed the US wasn't spying. In fact I have a very good friend working for one of those "initial" US government agencies as we speak. He is somewhere in Europe but I ain't gonna tell you where.

I am merely asking why so many Europeans, particularly Brits, come down so hard on the US government when their government is doing the same thing.

What's good for the goose, etc, etc, etc.

Ehm.....it's cos we agree with it?

edit......misread, apologies.

Start again......there's a perception among we Brits that the US slants far too many laws and treaties to their favour, whether that's the reality is something else.

Perception is a powerful thing though, so there are plenty of people out there that think Manning is a hero and Assange a demi-god. Personally I think Manning ( if found guilty ) is a traitor of the highest order, and that Assange is deranged in thinking he was doing the World a service by releasing the leaks.

Edited June 18, 2013 by theblether

[iancnx]

While it may be dismissed as just another Snowden leak, it would seem to me that there should be considerably more interest shown by our forum brothers from the UK about the actions of their own government rather than the actions of the US government.

The leak of the information should not overshadow the actual events that were performed by the GCHQ.

I never met a British man who was much in support or even proud of the politics of their government. that makes political discussions with them easier.

The British spies must be pissed that the American spies could not keep that secret secret. hahaha. but that means also that there is a USA-UK cooperation.

this case may cause some diplomatic uproar. The Turkish Finance Minister will be not amused and so will be other diplomats.

But then i guess it is probably normal spy business. Like the good old bug in the flower vase in a cafe that is a known spy meeting place. agencies observing foreign diplomats who also work for a agency, observing and collect information.

I think there is a difference if one of these agencies set up a bugged internet cafe to spy on participants of an international meeting or if an agency set a surveillance program to scan almost any electronic communication in the internet and by telephone of almost everyone. that is like the Stasi.

I think that people in Britain are perhaps more openly cynical about the actions and trustworthiness of their governments than are people in the US. Especially when it comes to foreign policy. Increasingly over the years Britain has ceased to have an independent foreign policy, we never take the lead on any thing of importance unless it has been approved by Washington. The reality is that US foreign policy is Britain's foreign policy, for better or worse, with Britain very much in the role of junior partner in the so called "special relationship". This is probably why Britain will never truly be at the heart of Europe, the other prominent European countries still fiercely guard their sovereign independence whereas Britain has long ago been perceived to have effectively compromised theirs. Hence the disquiet amongst some European allies at the revelations that the UK were spying on their delegates e mails, telephone conversations etc. The USA and UK and possibly Russia are probably the only ones with the technical expertise to do this. Regarding the wholesale eavesdropping on private citizens, the way it probably has been done, to get round the technical illegalities of spying on their own citizens, is that GCHQ does the spying on US citizens, and the NSA does the same on UK citizens. The two organizations are inextricably linked, two cheeks of the same arse. To the cynical paranoids in government this is the perfect way round it, and makes it all legal and above board. The obvious immorality of it just doesn't make a blip on their radar.

I agree with the foreign policy aspects of your post, but your take on who spies on who is a little simplistic.

SIGINT from the western perspective is globally monitored and shared amongst the club of 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

With regards to technologies of the other super powers you have the Russians and Chinese (and their satalite regimes globally). Never rule out the advanced technologies of the Koreans, Singaporeans or Japanese. Oh, and of course the French..... Who are a law unto themselves and who remain firmly outside of NATO. That is pretty much the rest of the world covered, just as it always has been.

The club of 5 was for many years admired in awe by their adversaries, but I suspect the advancements of the other countries I mentioned pretty much balances things out these days.

[wolf5370]

While it may be dismissed as just another Snowden leak, it would seem to me that there should be considerably more interest shown by our forum brothers from the UK about the actions of their own government rather than the actions of the US government.

The leak of the information should not overshadow the actual events that were performed by the GCHQ.

If Britain was spying then so were the Americans - their intelligence agencies have been entwined and working together (especially with respect to Europe) for many years - this is well know and not news to anyone I would suggest. How else does someone from an internal counter intelligence agency in the US know about it in order to leak it?

I am also pretty sure just about every other member of the G20 were doing likewise and will do so in the future at every other summit too. Important information would be using a military grade encrypted line and a clean room - everyone knows the game.

//Edit: 2009, how many officials are going to be using internet cafes instead of their secure laptops?

I've never claimed the US wasn't spying. In fact I have a very good friend working for one of those "initial" US government agencies as we speak. He is somewhere in Europe but I ain't gonna tell you where.

I am merely asking why so many Europeans, particularly Brits, come down so hard on the US government when their government is doing the same thing.

What's good for the goose, etc, etc, etc.

I think they call it redirection - or perhaps, holier than thou attitude. Everyone want to be ahead of the game in any deal, even with friends; only fools would not take every opportunity to do so - because sure as u-know-where everyone else is. Personally, as a Brit, I wouldn't come down hard on the US spying (especially as much intelligence is shared between the US and UK) - its the very fact that everyone knows everyone else is watching (or might be) that keeps us all safe in out beds at night. This is why in the cold war captured spies were usually traded back and forth - it made sense. That has changed somewhat with terrorism and countries that could care less about their own country men captured spying (not too hard to guess which), but not really with the big boys. "Who watches the watchers? they say - Why we do, say the watchers."

[iancnx]

I agree that we are innately cynical, but I don't agree that our foreign policy is dictated by Washington. One example would be the refusal to send troops into the Vietnam War, and more recently, if left to Washington we would meekly hand over the Falklands to Argentina.

The aims of the US and the UK are broadly the same, but not exactly the same.

I totally agree with your examples of Vietnam and the Falklands, but unfortunately those days of strong robust British leadership have sadly gone. The fiasco of the second Iraq war and currently Afghanistan is an example of failed foreign policy led by the US. It has cost countless UK lives unnecessarily, and has cost a fortune financially resulting in even more devastating defence cuts so we become even more reliant on the special relationship for our wider defence needs. Blair sold us out, and he will go down in history as the biggest failure of the 20th century. IMHO

[Exsexyman]

I agree that we are innately cynical, but I don't agree that our foreign policy is dictated by Washington. One example would be the refusal to send troops into the Vietnam War, and more recently, if left to Washington we would meekly hand over the Falklands to Argentina.

The aims of the US and the UK are broadly the same, but not exactly the same.

I agree that we are innately cynical, but I don't agree that our foreign policy is dictated by Washington. One example would be the refusal to send troops into the Vietnam War, and more recently, if left to Washington we would meekly hand over the Falklands to Argentina.

The aims of the US and the UK are broadly the same, but not exactly the same.

I did say "increasingly over the years". Vietnam and the Falklands were a long time ago now. In recent years, say the last twenty five, all the evidence would suggest that British foreign policy has been totally subservient to what is in the interests of Washington. Re your response to chuckd, "it's cos we agree with it". Is that the royal we? Speak for yourself. There are many many people in the UK who strongly disagree and don't just roll over for their governments when they act immorally. Unfortunately in today's climate those who poke their head above the parapet are increasingly being labelled 'unpatriotic', it could be argued that actually the opposite is the case. "There's a fine line between kneeling down, and bending over".---- The late, much lamented Frank Zappa.

[wolf5370]

While it may be dismissed as just another Snowden leak, it would seem to me that there should be considerably more interest shown by our forum brothers from the UK about the actions of their own government rather than the actions of the US government.

The leak of the information should not overshadow the actual events that were performed by the GCHQ.

I never met a British man who was much in support or even proud of the politics of their government. that makes political discussions with them easier.

The British spies must be pissed that the American spies could not keep that secret secret. hahaha. but that means also that there is a USA-UK cooperation.

this case may cause some diplomatic uproar. The Turkish Finance Minister will be not amused and so will be other diplomats.

But then i guess it is probably normal spy business. Like the good old bug in the flower vase in a cafe that is a known spy meeting place. agencies observing foreign diplomats who also work for a agency, observing and collect information.

I think there is a difference if one of these agencies set up a bugged internet cafe to spy on participants of an international meeting or if an agency set a surveillance program to scan almost any electronic communication in the internet and by telephone of almost everyone. that is like the Stasi.

I think that people in Britain are perhaps more openly cynical about the actions and trustworthiness of their governments than are people in the US. Especially when it comes to foreign policy. Increasingly over the years Britain has ceased to have an independent foreign policy, we never take the lead on any thing of importance unless it has been approved by Washington. The reality is that US foreign policy is Britain's foreign policy, for better or worse, with Britain very much in the role of junior partner in the so called "special relationship". This is probably why Britain will never truly be at the heart of Europe, the other prominent European countries still fiercely guard their sovereign independence whereas Britain has long ago been perceived to have effectively compromised theirs. Hence the disquiet amongst some European allies at the revelations that the UK were spying on their delegates e mails, telephone conversations etc. The USA and UK and possibly Russia are probably the only ones with the technical expertise to do this. Regarding the wholesale eavesdropping on private citizens, the way it probably has been done, to get round the technical illegalities of spying on their own citizens, is that GCHQ does the spying on US citizens, and the NSA does the same on UK citizens. The two organizations are inextricably linked, two cheeks of the same arse. To the cynical paranoids in government this is the perfect way round it, and makes it all legal and above board. The obvious immorality of it just doesn't make a blip on their radar.

I agree with the foreign policy aspects of your post, but your take on who spies on who is a little simplistic.

SIGINT from the western perspective is globally monitored and shared amongst the club of 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

With regards to technologies of the other super powers you have the Russians and Chinese (and their satalite regimes globally). Never rule out the advanced technologies of the Koreans, Singaporeans or Japanese. Oh, and of course the French..... Who are a law unto themselves and who remain firmly outside of NATO. That is pretty much the rest of the world covered, just as it always has been.

The club of 5 was for many years admired in awe by their adversaries, but I suspect the advancements of the other countries I mentioned pretty much balances things out these days.

Yes I like the Wiki Link. I was going to suggest it was not a simplistic as America controls UK foreign policy or controls intelligence. There is a lot of intelligence sharing, but always on a needs to know basis rather than an open book one. UK also tends to lead, I am apprised, in Europe related matters and US pretty much everywhere else - this makes sense of course. Britain has also not been the American puppy dog the media like to portray - often the policies are similar enough or likely perhaps agreed - when they are not there are calls, deals, threats and the usual that comes with diplomacy. Take the Gary McKinnon case - the US spent 10 years trying to extradite him, the media made much of it (especially the possibility of Brits kowtowing) but he was never extradited - take also the US friendly fire pilots in Desert Storm that wiped out a British convoy although it had correct markings, was on course on a pre-booked course and had working transponders - clear case of pilot error, US never extradited them (or even named them/submitted radio chatter). Things look black and white when running smoothly, bust rest assured Britain is still a proud nation and will fight tooth and claw for its sovereignty if called for. However, in a global political world we live in now, it makes sense for friendly countries to work together - share intelligence and stand behind each other. All the countries listed are of the same historic beginnings nationality wise, speak the same language, and base out legal systems from the same ancient British system (with obvious localisations since).

Britain is not at the centre of Europe (EU) and never will be, not because America writes its foreign policy (indeed if anything much of Europe is quite jealous of the special relationship), but because it is an island nation not part of the mainland (not for 8,000 years anyway), has been the enemy (trade wise and militarily) with most of Europe for over a millennia (no trust lost between any of them), has never been a go-along-with-then-flow sort of nation, shirked the Euro, has been too wealthy and powerful for its size for too long, is too proud, , crikey this list could go on forever - simple to say Britain has never really got along with the big powers of Europe because they were one for a long time ( and proudly gloat about it); the fact that most Brits mistrust the French and Germans (with good historic reason too) - and I guess that feeling is mutual.

Indeed, if most people on the streets of UK were asked if they had to be part of a federal Europe or the 51st State - the answer may be quite interesting!

[theblether]

I agree that we are innately cynical, but I don't agree that our foreign policy is dictated by Washington. One example would be the refusal to send troops into the Vietnam War, and more recently, if left to Washington we would meekly hand over the Falklands to Argentina.

The aims of the US and the UK are broadly the same, but not exactly the same.

I agree that we are innately cynical, but I don't agree that our foreign policy is dictated by Washington. One example would be the refusal to send troops into the Vietnam War, and more recently, if left to Washington we would meekly hand over the Falklands to Argentina.

The aims of the US and the UK are broadly the same, but not exactly the same.

I did say "increasingly over the years". Vietnam and the Falklands were a long time ago now. In recent years, say the last twenty five, all the evidence would suggest that British foreign policy has been totally subservient to what is in the interests of Washington. Re your response to chuckd, "it's cos we agree with it". Is that the royal we? Speak for yourself. There are many many people in the UK who strongly disagree and don't just roll over for their governments when they act immorally. Unfortunately in today's climate those who poke their head above the parapet are increasingly being labelled 'unpatriotic', it could be argued that actually the opposite is the case. "There's a fine line between kneeling down, and bending over".---- The late, much lamented Frank Zappa.

Sorry, it was only this year that the US received a stern message to pull it's neck in regards to the Falklands, and they agreed. I believe it's now official US policy to refer to the islands as the Falklands and not Las Malvinas.

[Publicus]

England is Old World so it has a perspective, experience, a reality that is radically different from that of the United States. It's stated particularly well in Post #20 by wofl5370 when he discusses in excellent representative detail some of the great differences between the British Isles and the continental mainland of Europe, and specific countries that are the antitheses of England, Britain, the UK and everything that comprises the nature of what it is to be an Englishman of any station in society.

My god, In 1960 when the Soviets shot down a U-2 spyplane over their territory Pres Eisenhower denied the U.S. was spying on the USSR. After the Soviets produced parts of the crashed aircraft and the pilot (the late Francis Gary Powers), Ike had to make an embarrassing retreat. Americans were shocked and mortified at Ike's lie, but far more so by the reality the U.S. was engaged in spying, even if it was against the USSR. The reaction among Americans was shock and horror: the United States, spying?!! OMG!!! No, it can't be!!! Only the bad guys spy! We Americans don't engage in such reprehensible behavior. No, not us!.

Europeans throughout were quietly laughing among themselves at the holier than thou reaction of the American public and our shock that our government, especially grandpa Ike, could or would engage in such a cheap tactic as spying. While it had been a rude awakening to Americans in general, the Europeans at the time simply shrugged and said that's what happens when you get caught. The Europeans were long accustomed to backstabbing, spying, double agents, diplomatic and palace intrigue, wartime espionage etc etc etc. A couple of thousand years of it. Hell, the Vatican had more to teach the CIA than the CIA could ever have realized at the time. Stalin had thought he was clever to ask how many divisions the pope had when he should have been asking how many sets of bishop's eyes and ears did the pope have, and in how many counties in how many countries.

The Brits readily admit to being cynical about all the present goings on, and they are. They're also used to it from their own long history of treachery and distrust, both at home and from abroad - across the Channel abroad. The Brits don't specifically have a 4th Amendment or the exact equivalent, or even a written constitution per se. The Brits reduced absolute power gradually, starting in 1215 with the Magna Carta, and a civil war and few failed revolutions later, in the 21st century, continue to spy as a matter of course.

A lot of Brits and continentals must view Edward Snowden as something of a 2nd or 3rd rate drama school dropout who's managed to steal a part in a larger spectacular of his own immodest making, and as someone Shakespeare would have laughed out of town.

Oscar Wilde might have liked him though.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.