[bayes]

You're probably right - although saying the accusations are "nonsense, utterly ridiculous and should be ignored" isn't strictly speaking the same as saying that they're untrue. GCHQ could believe that (although they happen to be true) it's nonsense and utterly ridiculous for commentators to be asserting so without any evidence, and it would be much better for everyone to ignore the accusation.

[jgrahamc]

I'm British, we don't like to overstate things. When you see GCHQ call something "nonsense" and "utterly ridiculous" you can be assured that they are denying it.

And I think there's something more. I would read into their statement that they are very angry.

[louthy]

> I would read into their statement that they are very angry.

This is my interpretation too (as a fellow Brit). As far as diplomatic language goes, it's one step short of saying "He's a bit of a twat".

[alex_hitchins]

Yes, this is exactly that I took from it. It's a massive slap in the face. We aren't even going to bother with protocol, you a being a major bell-end.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> although saying the accusations are "nonsense, utterly ridiculous and should be ignored" isn't strictly speaking the same as saying that they're untrue.

I would think that "nonsense" implies "untrue". I.e. it is "The subset of untruths that also are logically inconsistent"

We are splitting hairs of the fine parsing of the wording from GCHQ, when words of any kind are highly unusual.

[masklinn]

> isn't strictly speaking the same as saying that they're untrue.

It's way beyond just stating that they're untrue.

[sealjam]

I think saying they're "nonsense" is saying they're untrue.