Ace Breaking News

PRESS RELEASE GOV.U.K REPORT: Condemns Russia’s Sustained Attempts At Political Interference In The UK & Globally


AceBreakingNews – UK exposes attempted Russian cyber interference in politics and democratic processes & more about Russia’s FSB malign cyber activity.


Ace Press News From Cutting Room Floor: Published: Dec.08: 2023: TELEGRAM Ace Daily News Link

  • the KGB’s successor agency, the Federal Security Service (FSB) is behind sustained unsuccessful attempts to interfere in UK political processes
  • targets include politicians, civil servants, journalists, NGOs and other civil society organisations
  • in response, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has sanctioned individuals involved in the group’s activity and summoned the Russian Ambassador

The UK and allies have today (December 7th) exposed a series of attempts by the Russian Intelligence Services to target high-profile individuals and entities through cyber operations. The UK Government judges that this was done with the intent to use information obtained to interfere in UK politics and democratic processes.   

Centre 18, a unit within Russia’s Intelligence Services, the FSB, has been identified as being accountable for a range of cyber espionage operations targeting the UK.  

The activity was in turn conducted by Star Blizzard; a group that the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) – a part of GCHQ – assesses is almost certainly subordinate to FSB Centre 18.   

While some attacks resulted in documents being leaked, attempts to interfere with UK politics and democracy have not been successful. 

Star Blizzard is also commonly known as Callisto Group, SEABORGIUM or COLDRIVER and is operated by FSB officers. The group has also selectively leaked and amplified the release of information in line with Russian confrontation goals, including to undermine trust in politics in the UK and likeminded states. 

In particular, the UK has identified the FSB – through the activity conducted by Star Blizzard – as being involved in the following:

  • targeting, including spear-phishing, of parliamentarians from multiple political parties, from at least 2015 through to this year.  
  • the hack of UK-US trade documents that were leaked ahead of the 2019 General Election – previously attributed to the Russian state via Written Ministerial Statement in 2020.  
  • the 2018 hack of the Institute for Statecraft, a UK thinktank whose work included initiatives to defend democracy against disinformation, and the more recent hack of its founder Christopher Donnelly, whose account was compromised from December 2021; in both instances documents were subsequently leaked. 
  • targeting of universities, journalists, public sector, non-government organisations and other civil society organisations, many of whom play a key role in UK democracy

Following a National Crime Agency investigation, the UK has today sanctioned two members of Star Blizzard for their involvement in the preparation of spear-phishing campaigns and associated activity that resulted in unauthorised access and exfiltration of sensitive data, which was intended to undermine UK organisations and more broadly, the UK government. 

These sanctions have been delivered jointly with the US, and are the latest in our bilateral efforts to counter Russian malicious cyber activity that seeks to undermine our, and our allies’, integrity and prosperity. The US Department of Justice have concurrently unsealed indictments against the individuals designated today.

The individuals being designated in the UK and US are:

  • Ruslan Aleksandrovich PERETYATKO, who is a Russian FSB intelligence officer and a member of Star Blizzard AKA the Callisto Group 
  • Andrey Stanislavovich KORINETS, AKA Alexey DOGUZHIEV, who is a member of Star Blizzard AKA the Callisto Group 

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has also summoned the Russian Ambassador to express the UK’s deep concern about Russia’s sustained attempts to use cyber to interfere in political and democratic processes in the UK and beyond.  

In a statement to the House earlier today the Minister for Europe Leo Docherty emphasised that attempts to interfere with UK politics and democracy have not been successful. However, it is likely that Russia and other adversaries will continue to make attempts to use cyber means to interfere in UK politics. The NCSC alongside the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada will today publish a cyber security advisory to inform network defenders of how to mitigate this activity, and NCSC will publish guidance for high-risk individuals whilst providing further information around support available.  

Foreign Secretary David Cameron said:

Russia’s attempts to interfere in UK politics are completely unacceptable and seek to threaten our democratic processes. 

Despite their repeated efforts, they have failed. 

In sanctioning those responsible and summoning the Russian Ambassador today, we are exposing their malign attempts at influence and shining a light on yet another example of how Russia chooses to operate on the global stage.  

We will continue to work together with our allies to expose Russian covert cyber activity and hold Russia to account for its actions.

Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden said:

As I warned earlier this year, state actors, and the ‘Wagner-style’ sub-state hackers they use to do their dirty work, will continue to target our public institutions and our democratic processes. 

We will continue to call this activity out, to raise our defences, and to take action against the perpetrators.  

Online is the new frontline. We are taking a whole of society approach to ensuring we have the robust systems and cutting-edge skills needed to resist these attempts to undermine our democracy.

Home Secretary James Cleverly said:

An attack against our democratic institutions is an attack on our most fundamental British values and freedoms. The UK will not tolerate foreign interference and through the National Security Act, we are making the UK a harder operating environment for those seeking to interfere in our democratic institutions.

The activity announced today is part of a broader pattern of malign cyber activity conducted by the Russian Intelligence Services across the globe. In recent years the UK and allies have exposed Russian Intelligence for their role in ViaSat, SolarWinds, and targeting of Critical National Infrastructure. In May, the NCSC alongside Five Eye partners exposed a sophisticated cyberespionage tool designed and used by Centre 16 of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) for long-term intelligence collection on sensitive targets.  


These cyber-attacks were committed by a group NCSC assesses are highly likely subordinate to the FSB’s 18th Centre for Information Security. This is known in open source as:  

  • Star Blizzard 
  • Callisto Group  
  • TA446 
  • TAG-53 
  • BlueCharlie

Editor says …Sterling Publishing & Media Service Agency is not responsible for the content of external site or from any reports, posts or links and thanks for following as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and comment thank you

News & Views

FEATURED U.K NEWS & VIEWS REPORT: The draft ‘ Safety of Rwanda Bill ‘ would probably be effective, and would certainly be constitutional


AceNewsDesk – On Wednesday, the Government published the draft of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Draft Bill, the emergency legislation Rishi Sunak promised to get the Rwanda scheme back on track after it was derailed by the Supreme Court on November 15.


Ace Press News From Cutting Room Floor: Published: Dec.08: 2023: Conservative Home By December 8, 2023: TELEGRAM Ace Daily News Link

This legislation was controversial even before anybody caught sight of it; only on Tuesday we examined the false claim by anonymous Home Office officials that “the government can’t legislate its way out of the Supreme Court judgement” at all.

Now that we do have the text, we can address two important questions. First, would the Bill, if enacted, succeed in its stated aim of eliminating the legal friction which has to date left the Rwanda scheme stalled on the runway? And second: to what extent are critics right to claim that it represents some dark new departure for British legislation, or even a challenge to the rule of law?

(The essentially political question of “Will it ever become law?” was dealt with by our Editor yesterday.)

Would it work?

As far as I (and those more learned than I that I’ve spoken to) can see, the short answer here is “Yes.”; the longer answer begins “But…”.

Most obviously, the Bill “gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country” (Clause 1(2)(b)), and stipulates that: “Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country” (Clause 2(1)).

This deals directly with the issue led the Supreme Court to decide against the Government in November: that although the scheme has been deemed legal in principle, it could not demonstrate that Rwanda was in reality sufficiently safe to send people there without breaching the UK’s international obligations. As a matter of domestic law – which is what the domestic courts rule on – Rwanda would be deemed safe.

The Bill also aims to restrict the scope for individual challenges to deportation decisions – essential, as we noted previously, if the scheme is ever to reliably see people sent to Rwanda and thus, in theory, create a credible deterrent.

It does not preclude such challenges altogether. However, it aims to restrict them to cases where the individual in question can convincingly demonstrate, “based on compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances” (Clause 4(1)) that they would be at risk of harm in Rwanda.

This might seem confusing in light of Clause 2, which makes express provision that Rwanda be deemed a safe country. The explanation is that Clause 2 addresses general concerns about the operation of Kigali’s refugee policy, specifically the risk of refoulement – that refugees may be sent on to a country where they would suffer ill-treatment. This is made clear by Clause 2(4):

Clause 4 deals specifically with claims that the individual would face persecution in Rwanda itself, a much narrower basis for appeal. In theory, it would serve mainly to prevent the UK deporting to Rwanda refugees from Rwanda.

This is buttressed by the notwithstanding clauses. These are provisions which explicitly set aside legislation or other legal or international obligations that conflict with the Bill. The first aims to excise any basis for challenging a deportation decision save the specific grounds set out in Clause 4. This is Clause 2(5):

The second is Clause 3, which deals in detail with disapplying various provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 to specific parts of the asylum process.

If these worked as intended, they would allow the courts to dispose of the great majority of individual challenges to deportation, and to do so efficiently.

Of course, there is no telling in advance what sport lawyers will make of this loophole, or whether it might afford judges opportunities to interpret the Bill so as to defeat its intended effect.

This may be what Robert Jenrick was dissatisfied with. But as barrister Harry Gillow points out, it’s not clear that such an ironclad Bill would have been feasible – at least not if you take seriously Kigali’s sudden insistence that it would pull out of a deal with breached the UK’s (not Rwanda’s) international obligations.

Finally, Clause 5 mandates that the courts “must not have regard to” any interim measure issued by the European Court of Human Rights when making a judgment, because per Clause 5(2): “It is for a Minister of the Crown (and only a Minister of the Crown) to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.” An approach nearly as restrictive is applied to domestic interim remedies too (Clause 4(3)-(7)).

Is it mad, bad, or dangerous?

In theory then, the Bill as written would, if passed, seem to do what’s necessary both to lift the general barrier to the Rwanda scheme (the Supreme Court’s decision that the country is unsafe) and the case-by-case friction which would otherwise risk rendering the scheme practically operable.

But there is another class of objection: that set out in this article by Professor Mark Elliott of the University of Cambridge, wherein he claims the Bill is “an affront to the separation of powers and the rule of law”. He even goes so far as to imply that it could potentially “be challenged on the ground that it is simply unconstitutional”, citing a judgment, Privacy Internationalof which have written before.

Addressing such arguments takes us into the realm of legal theory and arcana. But given the apparent stakes (“the rule of law” is in peril, after all), we shall examine two.

International law

Elliott argues that whatever Parliament’s right to make law for the United Kingdom, such legislation has no bearing on this country’s international obligations. As such, the Bill would be “unlawful in international law even if domestic courts are forced by the Bill to turn a blind eye to that legal fact.”

It is true that Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law. But under our constitution it can legitimately legislate contrary to international law, and such statute is supreme within the UK’s legal order. That is why (contra Lewis Goodall) Parliament is expressly able to pass laws that do not comply with the Human Rights Act, and thus why prisoners can’t vote.

As such, it is wrong to imply by appeal to “the rule of law” that attempting so to do is a breach of the UK’s constitution and norms. Per Lord Diplock, in his judgment on Salomon:

If the terms of the legislation are clear and unambiguous, they must be given effect to, whether or not they carry out Her Majesty′s treaty obligations, for the sovereign power of the Queen in Parliament extends to breaking treaties…”

This is not to say that there aren’t risks to acting outside our international commitments. But those risks are diplomatic and political. The relationship of a sovereign state to international law is not like that of a citizen to the law of their country; that an international obligation is “binding” on the UK does not (and should not) grant it legal or moral equivalence with statute law.

Safety of Rwanda

Another objection is that the Government is by this Bill seeking to restrict the courts’ capacity as fact-finders and, as Lord Sumption put it last month, try to do the equivalent of declaring in law that black is white. There are a few counters to this.

First, Parliament could in fact do this. It might not be a good idea (Sumption called it “deeply discreditable”), but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Sumption himself has subsequently acknowledged this: “The courts will do what they’re told to, if they’re told in sufficiently clear terms. And this Bill is pretty clear.”

Second, as Michael Foran argues, this would not be the first time Parliament has legislated to substitute its will for a court’s capacity to find the facts: the Gender Recognition Act 2004 did the same thing. As he puts it, somewhat provocatively:

“Rwanda is safe in the same way that trans women with GRCs are women: it is deemed to be so by reference to a counterfactual declaration giving rise to interpretative obligations on courts.”

There is also a less confrontational argument advanced by Gillow. He suggests that the Bill is not simply decreeing an alternative interpretation to the facts the Supreme Court ruled on, but rather setting in law Parliament’s decision that Rwanda is safe “on the basis of the facts as now (including the binding MEDP treaty, not in place at the time of the UKSC judgment)”.


Were this Bill to pass in its current form, and were its exemptions and safeguards not subjected to too much creative interpretation in the courts, it would go a very long way toward making the Rwanda scheme operational. On that at least the Government seems correct, although its critics will note the second caveat is doing a lot of work.

Whether the approach taken – of trying to avoid a head-on collision with our international obligations by seeking to override them in specific cases – will prove effective, either here or in the long term, is an open question. But those insisting on an all-or-nothing approach to international law should be careful what they wish for. France recently straight-up ignored an ECHR ruling to deport a man with terror connections; stronger remedies are available.


Editor says …Sterling Publishing & Media Service Agency is not responsible for the content of external site or from any reports, posts or links and thanks for following as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and comment thank you

Ace Daily News

U.K NEWS DESK REPORT: Johnson Turmoil Over Thousands Of Covid Deaths Inquiry & Immigration Minster Jenrick Quits


Ace Newspaper Headlines: Jenrick quits in revolt’ and Johnson ‘sorry’ over Covid deaths


Ace Press News From Cutting Room Floor: Published: Dec.08: 2023: TELEGRAM Ace Daily News Link

The Financial Times leads with Rishi Sunak’s plans to unite his party behind the Rwanda bill “imploding” after the resignation of immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who wanted a tougher approach to the asylum policy. Boris Johnson also appears on the front page, admitting his government “vastly underestimated” the dangers posed by the pandemic at the UK’s Covid-19 inquiry.
The immigration minister quitting is also the i’s main story. It writes that the prime minister accused Mr Jenrick of “fundamentally misunderstanding the situation” by calling for the legislation to go further.
“Tories in turmoil” headlines the Guardian. It writes that Mr Sunak’s government has been “plunged into further crisis” following Mr Jenrick’s resignation.
Former Home Secretary secretary Suella Braverman giving her resignation statement – on the day the government published its draft bill – appears on the front of the Daily Telegraph. She told the Commons the Conservatives face “electoral oblivion” if the government’s introduces another Rwanda bill “destined to fail”.
The Times also leads on Mr Jenrick’s exit from government. The paper also reports that large numbers of Britons are ditching three meals a day. Almost a third of the nation sits down for two meals a day and replaces the third with snacks, according to a Waitrose survey.
Daily Mail
The Daily Mail uses its front page to ask if the Conservatives will ever give up fighting each other and start fighting Labour? Meanwhile, J-Lo appears on the front page in an outfit she says makes her feel “bullet-proof”.
Daily Express
“Jenrick quits in revolt” headlines the Daily Express, saying Mr Sunak’s cabinet has been “rocked” by the resignation.
In other news, the Metro leads on former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s appearance at the UK’s Covid inquiry. The paper reports on Mr Johnson apologising to millions who lost loved ones during the pandemic during the first of a two-day grilling.
“Johnson in the dock” says the Daily Mirror as it writes that Mr Johnson was condemned by bereaved families. Protesters disrupted the Covid inquiry hearing, holding signs that read “the dead can’t hear your apology”. Elsewhere, Kim Kardashian and the Beckhams appear on the front page as the paper previews fashion house Chanel hosting a show in Manchester. The Mirror says the A-list stars will attend.
Daily Star
The Daily Star mocks up a picture of Boris Johnson as “pinocchio on the stand” at the Covid inquiry.
The Sun
The Sun reports that presenter Anne Robinson is dating Andrew Parker Bowles, first husband of Queen Camilla. It says the pair have been in a relationship for a year.

“Tories in turmoil,” declares the Guardian, following the resignation of the immigration minister Robert Jenrick. He quit after concluding the emergency legislation on the Rwanda deportation plans was a “triumph of hope over experience”. The Daily Telegraph reports that Mr Jenrick failed in his attempt to persuade Rishi Sunak to give ministers powers to “ignore the European Convention on Human Rights”. According to the Financial Times, the bill does ignore “swathes of international law” but supporters of the prime minister say it is “at the max” of what he could do. 

The Daily Express reports that Mr Sunak’s “first test” on the draft Rwanda bill is expected to come next week when MPs have their initial vote. Some are reportedly calling for the Commons to sit over Christmas so it can pass through Parliament as soon as possible. Writing in the i, Katy Balls points out Mr Sunak suffered his first defeat in the Commons this week and “the worry for ministers is that it could be the beginning of a trend”. As for Mr Jenrick, according to the Guardian, he will return to the backbenches “trying to make waves as another standard bearer for the right”. 

Boris Johnson
Boris Johnson said he was sorry the “pain and the loss and the suffering”

Pictures of former Boris Johnson giving evidence to the Covid inquiry make many front pages. Metro paraphrases his apology for its headline: “Sorry for your loss.” The Daily Mirror opts for the words of protesters: “The dead can’t hear your apologies.” The Sun leads on how the former prime minister “fought back tears” as he recalled the “Covid-ravaged” year of 2020. The Daily Star is less sympathetic with its front page showing Mr Johnson with a Pinocchio-style long nose.

The performances of the two men at the centre of yesterday’s hearings, Mr Johnson and the lead counsel to the inquiry Hugo Keith KC, are picked apart. Writing in the i, Ian Dunt says all the former prime minister gave was an “endless stream of words, none of them providing any clarity”. Jason Beattie of the Daily Mirror accuses him of “selective amnesia over key questions”. The Guardian calls him an “unreliable witness”In the Daily Mail, Mr Keith is likened to “one of those chaps in the Old Spice ads” by Quentin Letts – adding “his polished scepticism fell on hard ground” because “Boris had, for once, done his homework”. 

Yorkshire Pudding
Waitrose says its sales of Yorkshire puddings and roast potatoes are up

The Sun reports that the BBC licence fee will rise by more than £10 next year. The paper says corporation’s bosses had hoped the levy would go up by nearly £15 but ministers pressed them to settle for an increase of 6.7%, in line with September’s rate of inflation. 

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail declares “bangers are back!”, as it reports that families are returning to comfort eating to get through the cost of living squeeze. The results from Waitrose’s annual food and drink report show shepherd’s pie, battered fish and Yorkshire pudding have all seen a revival. Even peas are reportedly on the up. The Guardian says that trend is linked to the end of the “avocado toast years” with experts hailing smashed peas as a lower cost and environmentally friendly alternative.

Editor says …Sterling Publishing & Media Service Agency is not responsible for the content of external site or from any reports, posts or links and thanks for following as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and comment thank you

Ace Breaking News

BREAKING U.K BUSINESS REPORT: Shopping With Cash Rises For First Time In A Decade


AceNewsDesk – Cash use has grown for the first time in 10 years as shoppers keep a close eye on their budgets while prices rise, retailers have said.


Ace Press News From Cutting Room Floor: Published: Dec.07: 2023: By Kevin Peachey and Charlotte McDonald: BBC Business News: TELEGRAM Ace Daily News Link


The British Retail Consortium said 19% of purchases were made with notes and coins last year, echoing a report by banks showing a slight rebound.

The figures come as the UK’s financial watchdog has proposed new rules to help maintain access to cash.

Ministers say banks will be fined if money cannot be withdrawn or deposited.

Under government rules, free withdrawals and deposits will need to be available within one mile for people living in urban areas.

In rural areas, where there are concerns over “cash deserts”, the maximum distance is three miles.

Shoppers’ choices

Cash was used in 19% of transactions last year, according to retailers, up from 15% the previous year. Until 2015, notes and coins were used in more than half of transactions and, while card use now dominated, cash still had its benefits.

The consortium said consumers were budgeting carefully to try to cope with cost of living pressures, and there was also a “natural return” for cash after it slumped during the pandemic.

Its payments policy adviser, Hannah Regan, said: “We are now seeing a return to many of the pre-pandemic trends in payments, including smaller but more frequent purchases, and a slight return of cash payments. 

“Unfortunately, what has not changed, is the ever-increasing scale of fees paid by retailers in order to accept card payments.”

In September, banking trade body UK Finance also reported that cash use had risen for the first time in a decade, pointing to the financial impact of rising prices.

But it said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze had eased.

UK Finance said nearly 22 million people only used cash once a month or not at all last year.

However, about five million people still rely on cash and there has been pressure to ensure access is still available as bank branches and ATMs shut.

Among a string of closures announced last week, was the final bank in Richmond, North Yorkshire – part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s constituency – which will be replaced with a shared banking hub.

The Treasury wants to maintain the current level of coverage of free access to cash, through ATMs or face-to-face services, but says that could be diluted as cash use falls.

A voluntary arrangement is currently in place which means every High Street should have free access to cash within 1km.

The UK’s financial watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority, (FCA) proposed new additional rules on Thursday requiring banks and building societies to assess and plug gaps in local cash provision.

The FCA’s consultation document showed that in the two years to the first quarter of 2023, 1,391 bank and building society branches closed, as did 2,176 free-to-use ATMs. 

Under the new rules, designated firms will be required to look at gaps in access to cash across local communities and act if necessary. In their assessments, lenders will need to take into account factors such as transport links and the age of the local population. 

The FCA wants to prevent people and businesses from facing unreasonable costs to access their money, which could be through charges, travel costs or time.

Lenders will be required to provide “reasonable” additional cash services to fill gaps where assessments show that there is, or will be, a big local gap. They must also ensure they do not close cash facilities, including bank branches and ATMs, until those extra services are available.

Sheldon Mills, executive director of consumers and competition at the FCA, said: “We know that, while there is an increasing shift to digital payments, over three million consumers still rely on cash – particularly people who may be vulnerable.” 

He added that the new rules outlined under the proposals would “help manage the pace of change and ensure that people can continue to access cash if they need it”.

The plans follow new powers granted to the regulator by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, although they will not enable the FCA to prevent bank branches from closing.

Editor says …Sterling Publishing & Media Service Agency is not responsible for the content of external site or from any reports, posts or links and thanks for following as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and comment thank you

Ace Breaking News

BREAKING U.K MET POLICE REPORT: Just Stop Oil Protests Have Cost Taxpayers Almost Twenty Million


AceBreakingNews – The Met Police has asked Just Stop Oil (JSO) to “reach out and speak to us” after revealing policing the campaign group’s protests has cost almost £20m.


Ace Press News From Cutting Room Floor: Published: Dec.07: 2023: BBC U.K News: TELEGRAM Ace Daily News Link

File image from November 2022 showing JSO protesters marching down The Strand
The force says the time it has spent on JSO equates to roughly 300 officers taken off frontline policing each day

The force said the time it had spent on the group equated to roughly 300 officers being taken off frontline policing each day.

It added JSO had “refused to engage” with police when planning protests.

JSO said it would continue its actions until “steps are taken to prevent the extraction of new oil and gas”.

Hundreds of protests have been held since the group’s first demonstration in 2022.

As well as marching on roads, JSO activists have disrupted events including The Open golf, Wimbledon, the Ashes, the London Pride March and the Chelsea Flower Show: Here’s More Below:

Cdr Kyle Gordon, the senior officer responsible for planning the Met’s response to the latest round of JSO’s protests, said:

: “£20m from the public purse is a lot of money. I would much, much prefer to be using that within communities.

“These officers should be responding to local communities and dealing with local issues instead of being taken away to police Just Stop Oil protests.”

He added:

“ When [JSO] talk about slow marches, it is in everything other than name an attempt to block the road and cause maximum disruption to people right across London.

“Our desire is that Just Stop Oil come forward and speak with us, so we can actually work with them.

“We absolutely understand and support the fundamental right to protest within a democratic society, but what we’ve got to do is balance that right with the rights of everybody else who is using this city.”

A spokesperson for JSO said the group had written to Sir Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, about new oil and gas licensing in October but had had no response.

“The police must know that unless steps are taken to prevent the extraction of new oil and gas, they will be on the frontlines of dealing with social breakdown and mass civil unrest,” the spokesperson added.

Editor says …Sterling Publishing & Media Service Agency is not responsible for the content of external site or from any reports, posts or links and thanks for fol@acenewsservices lowing as always appreciate every like, reblog or retweet and comment thank you