Gavin Williamson Sacked over Huawei Leaks
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from your jocularity, I wonder; do you have any sort of plan as to how we might take the dear old country forward without us all becoming depressingly, wretchedly and ultimately a failure-bomb of pseudo-communism under Jeremy's silly little plans?
So no, I have no plan other than a dreamers wish that something better will emerge...but I'm afraid the cynic in me will not believe in any such possibility. So please leave me in peace with my sense of humour and a large bottle of single malt.
PS
I hold no candle for any political party currently existing...but I do feel the re-emergence of the old Monster Raving Looney Party would be marked improvement on any of the current lot.
PPS
And I repeat...
The sacking of Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson makes him the 38th person to have left the May Government in just over 12 months, and the sixth Cabinet minister. It’s a departure record.
hahahahahahahahahahah
I too have found him pro-armed forces. His refusal to resign reads very convincingly, and I think he may well have the ability to shaft the shafters ..... still a young man in political terms.
At least he 'appeared' to be on our side.
whereas.
whereas.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One senior Conservative also points out a rich irony here, saying: "A government that governs by open leaking then sacks someone for not being open about their leaking. We have surely moved from the incompetent to the theatre of the absurd!"
Williamson was always pro- Gavin Williamson and nothing more
the mad statements (eg sending the fleet to warn off China etc) every Monday morning to get his picture in the press, the dressing in military gear, again to get his picture in the press....
he was clearly the main suspect for the leak and he admits he had a telephone conversation with the Telegraph journalist who broke the story immediately after the meeting... what an idiot ........
Another useless UK career politician who can't tell the difference between his own career and the UK's interest........
Thank God he was nailed now before he could do serious damage.................
the mad statements (eg sending the fleet to warn off China etc) every Monday morning to get his picture in the press, the dressing in military gear, again to get his picture in the press....
he was clearly the main suspect for the leak and he admits he had a telephone conversation with the Telegraph journalist who broke the story immediately after the meeting... what an idiot ........
Another useless UK career politician who can't tell the difference between his own career and the UK's interest........
Thank God he was nailed now before he could do serious damage.................
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know, but it's not exactly unanimous spontaneous consent with the idea that Huawei is an arm of the Communist Party of the PRC, which is the US claim.
From May's letter...
"am therefore concerned by the manner in which you have engaged with this investigation.
It has been conducted fairly, with the full co-operation of other NSC attendees.
They have all answered questions, engaged properly, provided as much information as possible to assist with the investigation, and encouraged their staff to do the same. Your conduct has not been of the same standard as others.
In our meeting this evening, I put to you the latest information from the investigation, which provides compelling evidence suggesting your responsibility for the unauthorised disclosure.
No other credible version of events to explain this leak has been identified."
So presumably he DIDN'T answer all the questions, encourage his staff to help or provide info........ he wouldn't have stiffed him unless he was being slithery as hell I guess.......
"am therefore concerned by the manner in which you have engaged with this investigation.
It has been conducted fairly, with the full co-operation of other NSC attendees.
They have all answered questions, engaged properly, provided as much information as possible to assist with the investigation, and encouraged their staff to do the same. Your conduct has not been of the same standard as others.
In our meeting this evening, I put to you the latest information from the investigation, which provides compelling evidence suggesting your responsibility for the unauthorised disclosure.
No other credible version of events to explain this leak has been identified."
So presumably he DIDN'T answer all the questions, encourage his staff to help or provide info........ he wouldn't have stiffed him unless he was being slithery as hell I guess.......
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nottinghamshire
Age: 62
Posts: 709
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as Williamson is concerned the sacking is (as far as I can see) a reaction to the leaking that some ministers were opposed to the inclusion of Huawei in the 5G rollout. Good. Im glad that there are people who challenge those decisions, but confidentiality is key. If he was that unhappy, and considered the risk high then he could have resigned and made the reasons public.
Most of us are not in a position to make well founded judgements on the risk of Huawei to our security. We, and Europe have been soft on this in the past; the promise of cheaper infrastructure has been enough to offset the risk (possibly with some other operational safeguards). The USA on the other hand, does what the USA always does. Handle it with paranoia doused with a hint of McArthyism - Witness the blocking of bids to aquire former us giant Motorola Networks. The big 'M' were strong wherever the USA had influence and as such a sucessful aquisition would have led to a land grab of infratructure within the US itself and elsewhere. It went to Nokia.
My own direct dealings with them, albeit some years ago led to them placing a limited order with the UK for technical samples for evaluation within thier infrastructure back in China. The board of the company blocked the sale as they felt it was a risk to our IP. If they'd have ordered 10k we might well have done it. - Risk vs Reward.
Point of order ORAC-he was sacked for potentially being in breach of the OSA. Its not a great advertisment for his claims to be PM.
Can only think he forgot he was at the NSC and not a Cabinet meeting (if it was him).
Can only think he forgot he was at the NSC and not a Cabinet meeting (if it was him).
Lord O'Donnell stresses the leak was only a breach of the ministerial code, "not a breach of the Official Secrets Act that is putting people's lives at risk".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-48131091
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Lord O'Donnell (former Cabinet Secretary) reported on the BBC News Site as saying on the Today Programme :-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-48131091
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-48131091
Indeed Chugalug2. I'm sure the reason that the PM now considers this matter 'closed' despite the potential National Security implications, is that a police level investigation may not quite reveal the answer that she got to? Possibly hurried chats with The Met Chief, along the lines of 'don't worry Cressida, its sorted, nothing to see here...'
Of course, the opposition politicos won't let it lie and I believe there is an Urgent question in the HOC in a minute or two from the Tom Watson MP.
It will be interesting to see how this develops. The former SoS Defence knows where a lot of bodies lie and skeletons can be found in cupboards it seems...and he's not so amused at having his name associated with an act of treason. He may demand due process himself?
Well this went off-script quickly!
As soon as Sir Mark Sedwill was appointed by the PM as the leak investigator it set in chain the usual business of removing Number 10, the Cabinet Office and the NSC chair as entities for suspicion or investigation. Quite handy when you know they leak as a matter of routine.
Sir Mark's list of suspects was now contained to the intelligence agencies themselves (highly unlikely and outside of his gift) so effectively he had to pick either the Home Sec or Defence Sec. Even if he wanted too, picking the Home Office would have triggered a Met Police investigation as they would have undoubted primacy.
As the PM knew, Sir Mark managed to pull a fast one on Gavin Williamson when he deleted the MoD from the Defence Review, chairing it himself as the NSC. When this started to unravel Williamson dug the knife into Sir Mark and a separate MoD orchestrated 'Defence Modernisation Review' was split away from the NSC chair. More dummies were spat.
But as the PM knew, the normal politics would kick-in: The Defence Secretary would be asked to resign and he would dutifully accept responsibility for an 'inadvertent error' and everyone would agree that it was all a big mistake with no real consequences and no need for the Met Police as everything has been resolved.
With Gavin Williamson issuing a flat denial and positively courting a police investigation it has all gone tits-up. The PM cannot claim that the matter is closed as, effectively, there is a counter claim that somebody else leaked the information and has managed to evade the first investigation - effectively a criminal matter. Equally, Williamson has surrendered the 'inadvertent error' political defence and is equally liable for a criminal investigation.
With so many senior politicians chalking this up as a major security breach it is difficult to see how the PM can avoid a police investigation. Nobody has admitted an error and nobody is accepting the blame.
As soon as Sir Mark Sedwill was appointed by the PM as the leak investigator it set in chain the usual business of removing Number 10, the Cabinet Office and the NSC chair as entities for suspicion or investigation. Quite handy when you know they leak as a matter of routine.
Sir Mark's list of suspects was now contained to the intelligence agencies themselves (highly unlikely and outside of his gift) so effectively he had to pick either the Home Sec or Defence Sec. Even if he wanted too, picking the Home Office would have triggered a Met Police investigation as they would have undoubted primacy.
As the PM knew, Sir Mark managed to pull a fast one on Gavin Williamson when he deleted the MoD from the Defence Review, chairing it himself as the NSC. When this started to unravel Williamson dug the knife into Sir Mark and a separate MoD orchestrated 'Defence Modernisation Review' was split away from the NSC chair. More dummies were spat.
But as the PM knew, the normal politics would kick-in: The Defence Secretary would be asked to resign and he would dutifully accept responsibility for an 'inadvertent error' and everyone would agree that it was all a big mistake with no real consequences and no need for the Met Police as everything has been resolved.
With Gavin Williamson issuing a flat denial and positively courting a police investigation it has all gone tits-up. The PM cannot claim that the matter is closed as, effectively, there is a counter claim that somebody else leaked the information and has managed to evade the first investigation - effectively a criminal matter. Equally, Williamson has surrendered the 'inadvertent error' political defence and is equally liable for a criminal investigation.
With so many senior politicians chalking this up as a major security breach it is difficult to see how the PM can avoid a police investigation. Nobody has admitted an error and nobody is accepting the blame.
I couldn’t disagree more with Asturias’ opinion that Gavin Williamson was just: “Another useless UK career politician who can't tell the difference between his own career and the UK's interest.” I’d also argue with Racedo and Onceapilot, and would tend to agree with Nutloose and Proone.
One of the perks of being a defence journo is that one gets to meet many Defence Ministers and senior officers.
In some cases all one gets is an opportunity to ask the odd question within a huddle of politician/officer, minders, and hacks. In other cases one gets a hurried chat. Occasionally you get the chance for a longer sit down one-on-one chat. At the other end of the spectrum there are politicians you see and hear but can’t engage with - Geoff Hoon seemed very keen to avoid any contact with journalists at all!
A journo’s contact with any Defence Secretary is not enough to claim great insight or knowledge, but it can be enough to form an impression.
Since I started working in this field full time, there have been ten Tory Defence Secretaries and six Labour, plus countless junior Ministers. I’ve properly met about eight of them, and watched and questioned a few more.
John Reid struck me as being very in command of his brief, knowledgeable and professional, while the floor-crossing Quentin Davies was also incredibly knowledgeable about defence, and had great personal charm. They seemed to be ‘better friends to defence’ than some Tory Secretaries of State and Ministers.
Phil Hammond was an incredibly professional operator – so in command of his brief that he seemed relaxed and self confident even when dealing with the kind of really granular detail that I would not have expected him to know about. And he was another really charming and friendly, open and approachable chap.
It’s easy to sneer at Williamson – he didn’t seem to have that ‘Eton and Oxford polish’ that many senior politicians have (whether they went to those institutions or not), and seemed to have trouble with the digraph ‘th’, sometimes substituting an ‘f’ or ‘v’ which doesn’t matter, but which gives an impression of not being well educated. His well publicised howlers (telling the Russians to shut up and go away, etc.) were embarrassing, and his boyish enthusiasm could sometimes get in the way. At the F-35B/Centurion IOC announcement, for example, his insistence on speaking off the cuff, without notes, meant that he failed to actually announce anything, leading to an undignified scrabble to do so by senior officers and press minders after his speech. You never got the feeling that he had a surgically incisive brain, nor a particularly detailed command of every element of his brief.
But after speaking to him, I was left in no doubt as to his genuine enthusiasm for defence, his keenness to evangelise for it, and his willingness to fight tooth and nail to get his department every penny that it needed and to oppose the Treasury. He seemed to appreciate the extraordinary calibre of our servicemen, and even to be slightly in awe of them (something I share!), and he seemed to have a real appreciation of the many threats facing us.
There sometimes seems to be a tendency among senior officers and politicians to pursue the procurement of particular high profile, high tech weapons systems – almost as though they want their legacy to be ‘the CAS or Defence Secretary who got the RAF the Scruggs Wonderplane’ – while presiding over cuts to force structure. Williamson seemed to have a real understanding of the vital importance of mass – of the need for more bayonets, more ships and more squadrons.
He is clearly an ambitious young man, but he was the first Defence Secretary I’ve met who didn’t seem to view Defence as being merely a toe hold for a long ascent of the greasy pole, and the first who might have been willing to put the interests of his department ahead of career and self interest.
I’d be VERY surprised if Ms Mordaunt was anything like as pro-defence as Williamson, or as willing to fight its corner, and I therefore very much regret his removal.
Melchett pointed out an interesting tendency for Defence to be viewed as being a relatively unimportant brief, nowadays, citing Penny Morduant’s retention of her position as Minister for Women.
This is nothing new. Wasn’t George Robertson given Defence to make up for his disappointment of not getting Scotland?
One of the perks of being a defence journo is that one gets to meet many Defence Ministers and senior officers.
In some cases all one gets is an opportunity to ask the odd question within a huddle of politician/officer, minders, and hacks. In other cases one gets a hurried chat. Occasionally you get the chance for a longer sit down one-on-one chat. At the other end of the spectrum there are politicians you see and hear but can’t engage with - Geoff Hoon seemed very keen to avoid any contact with journalists at all!
A journo’s contact with any Defence Secretary is not enough to claim great insight or knowledge, but it can be enough to form an impression.
Since I started working in this field full time, there have been ten Tory Defence Secretaries and six Labour, plus countless junior Ministers. I’ve properly met about eight of them, and watched and questioned a few more.
John Reid struck me as being very in command of his brief, knowledgeable and professional, while the floor-crossing Quentin Davies was also incredibly knowledgeable about defence, and had great personal charm. They seemed to be ‘better friends to defence’ than some Tory Secretaries of State and Ministers.
Phil Hammond was an incredibly professional operator – so in command of his brief that he seemed relaxed and self confident even when dealing with the kind of really granular detail that I would not have expected him to know about. And he was another really charming and friendly, open and approachable chap.
It’s easy to sneer at Williamson – he didn’t seem to have that ‘Eton and Oxford polish’ that many senior politicians have (whether they went to those institutions or not), and seemed to have trouble with the digraph ‘th’, sometimes substituting an ‘f’ or ‘v’ which doesn’t matter, but which gives an impression of not being well educated. His well publicised howlers (telling the Russians to shut up and go away, etc.) were embarrassing, and his boyish enthusiasm could sometimes get in the way. At the F-35B/Centurion IOC announcement, for example, his insistence on speaking off the cuff, without notes, meant that he failed to actually announce anything, leading to an undignified scrabble to do so by senior officers and press minders after his speech. You never got the feeling that he had a surgically incisive brain, nor a particularly detailed command of every element of his brief.
But after speaking to him, I was left in no doubt as to his genuine enthusiasm for defence, his keenness to evangelise for it, and his willingness to fight tooth and nail to get his department every penny that it needed and to oppose the Treasury. He seemed to appreciate the extraordinary calibre of our servicemen, and even to be slightly in awe of them (something I share!), and he seemed to have a real appreciation of the many threats facing us.
There sometimes seems to be a tendency among senior officers and politicians to pursue the procurement of particular high profile, high tech weapons systems – almost as though they want their legacy to be ‘the CAS or Defence Secretary who got the RAF the Scruggs Wonderplane’ – while presiding over cuts to force structure. Williamson seemed to have a real understanding of the vital importance of mass – of the need for more bayonets, more ships and more squadrons.
He is clearly an ambitious young man, but he was the first Defence Secretary I’ve met who didn’t seem to view Defence as being merely a toe hold for a long ascent of the greasy pole, and the first who might have been willing to put the interests of his department ahead of career and self interest.
I’d be VERY surprised if Ms Mordaunt was anything like as pro-defence as Williamson, or as willing to fight its corner, and I therefore very much regret his removal.
Melchett pointed out an interesting tendency for Defence to be viewed as being a relatively unimportant brief, nowadays, citing Penny Morduant’s retention of her position as Minister for Women.
This is nothing new. Wasn’t George Robertson given Defence to make up for his disappointment of not getting Scotland?
I couldn’t disagree more with Asturias’ opinion that Gavin Williamson was just: “Another useless UK career politician who can't tell the difference between his own career and the UK's interest.” I’d also argue with Racedo and Onceapilot, and would tend to agree with Nutloose and Proone.
One of the perks of being a defence journo is that one gets to meet many Defence Ministers and senior officers.
In some cases all one gets is an opportunity to ask the odd question within a huddle of politician/officer, minders, and hacks. In other cases one gets a hurried chat. Occasionally you get the chance for a longer sit down one-on-one chat. At the other end of the spectrum there are politicians you see and hear but can’t engage with - Geoff Hoon seemed very keen to avoid any contact with journalists at all!
A journo’s contact with any Defence Secretary is not enough to claim great insight or knowledge, but it can be enough to form an impression.
Since I started working in this field full time, there have been ten Tory Defence Secretaries and six Labour, plus countless junior Ministers. I’ve properly met about eight of them, and watched and questioned a few more.
John Reid struck me as being very in command of his brief, knowledgeable and professional, while the floor-crossing Quentin Davies was also incredibly knowledgeable about defence, and had great personal charm. They seemed to be ‘better friends to defence’ than some Tory Secretaries of State and Ministers.
Phil Hammond was an incredibly professional operator – so in command of his brief that he seemed relaxed and self confident even when dealing with the kind of really granular detail that I would not have expected him to know about. And he was another really charming and friendly, open and approachable chap.
It’s easy to sneer at Williamson – he didn’t seem to have that ‘Eton and Oxford polish’ that many senior politicians have (whether they went to those institutions or not), and seemed to have trouble with the digraph ‘th’, sometimes substituting an ‘f’ or ‘v’ which doesn’t matter, but which gives an impression of not being well educated. His well publicised howlers (telling the Russians to shut up and go away, etc.) were embarrassing, and his boyish enthusiasm could sometimes get in the way. At the F-35B/Centurion IOC announcement, for example, his insistence on speaking off the cuff, without notes, meant that he failed to actually announce anything, leading to an undignified scrabble to do so by senior officers and press minders after his speech. You never got the feeling that he had a surgically incisive brain, nor a particularly detailed command of every element of his brief.
But after speaking to him, I was left in no doubt as to his genuine enthusiasm for defence, his keenness to evangelise for it, and his willingness to fight tooth and nail to get his department every penny that it needed and to oppose the Treasury. He seemed to appreciate the extraordinary calibre of our servicemen, and even to be slightly in awe of them (something I share!), and he seemed to have a real appreciation of the many threats facing us.
There sometimes seems to be a tendency among senior officers and politicians to pursue the procurement of particular high profile, high tech weapons systems – almost as though they want their legacy to be ‘the CAS or Defence Secretary who got the RAF the Scruggs Wonderplane’ – while presiding over cuts to force structure. Williamson seemed to have a real understanding of the vital importance of mass – of the need for more bayonets, more ships and more squadrons.
He is clearly an ambitious young man, but he was the first Defence Secretary I’ve met who didn’t seem to view Defence as being merely a toe hold for a long ascent of the greasy pole, and the first who might have been willing to put the interests of his department ahead of career and self interest.
I’d be VERY surprised if Ms Mordaunt was anything like as pro-defence as Williamson, or as willing to fight its corner, and I therefore very much regret his removal.
Melchett pointed out an interesting tendency for Defence to be viewed as being a relatively unimportant brief, nowadays, citing Penny Morduant’s retention of her position as Minister for Women.
This is nothing new. Wasn’t George Robertson given Defence to make up for his disappointment of not getting Scotland?
One of the perks of being a defence journo is that one gets to meet many Defence Ministers and senior officers.
In some cases all one gets is an opportunity to ask the odd question within a huddle of politician/officer, minders, and hacks. In other cases one gets a hurried chat. Occasionally you get the chance for a longer sit down one-on-one chat. At the other end of the spectrum there are politicians you see and hear but can’t engage with - Geoff Hoon seemed very keen to avoid any contact with journalists at all!
A journo’s contact with any Defence Secretary is not enough to claim great insight or knowledge, but it can be enough to form an impression.
Since I started working in this field full time, there have been ten Tory Defence Secretaries and six Labour, plus countless junior Ministers. I’ve properly met about eight of them, and watched and questioned a few more.
John Reid struck me as being very in command of his brief, knowledgeable and professional, while the floor-crossing Quentin Davies was also incredibly knowledgeable about defence, and had great personal charm. They seemed to be ‘better friends to defence’ than some Tory Secretaries of State and Ministers.
Phil Hammond was an incredibly professional operator – so in command of his brief that he seemed relaxed and self confident even when dealing with the kind of really granular detail that I would not have expected him to know about. And he was another really charming and friendly, open and approachable chap.
It’s easy to sneer at Williamson – he didn’t seem to have that ‘Eton and Oxford polish’ that many senior politicians have (whether they went to those institutions or not), and seemed to have trouble with the digraph ‘th’, sometimes substituting an ‘f’ or ‘v’ which doesn’t matter, but which gives an impression of not being well educated. His well publicised howlers (telling the Russians to shut up and go away, etc.) were embarrassing, and his boyish enthusiasm could sometimes get in the way. At the F-35B/Centurion IOC announcement, for example, his insistence on speaking off the cuff, without notes, meant that he failed to actually announce anything, leading to an undignified scrabble to do so by senior officers and press minders after his speech. You never got the feeling that he had a surgically incisive brain, nor a particularly detailed command of every element of his brief.
But after speaking to him, I was left in no doubt as to his genuine enthusiasm for defence, his keenness to evangelise for it, and his willingness to fight tooth and nail to get his department every penny that it needed and to oppose the Treasury. He seemed to appreciate the extraordinary calibre of our servicemen, and even to be slightly in awe of them (something I share!), and he seemed to have a real appreciation of the many threats facing us.
There sometimes seems to be a tendency among senior officers and politicians to pursue the procurement of particular high profile, high tech weapons systems – almost as though they want their legacy to be ‘the CAS or Defence Secretary who got the RAF the Scruggs Wonderplane’ – while presiding over cuts to force structure. Williamson seemed to have a real understanding of the vital importance of mass – of the need for more bayonets, more ships and more squadrons.
He is clearly an ambitious young man, but he was the first Defence Secretary I’ve met who didn’t seem to view Defence as being merely a toe hold for a long ascent of the greasy pole, and the first who might have been willing to put the interests of his department ahead of career and self interest.
I’d be VERY surprised if Ms Mordaunt was anything like as pro-defence as Williamson, or as willing to fight its corner, and I therefore very much regret his removal.
Melchett pointed out an interesting tendency for Defence to be viewed as being a relatively unimportant brief, nowadays, citing Penny Morduant’s retention of her position as Minister for Women.
This is nothing new. Wasn’t George Robertson given Defence to make up for his disappointment of not getting Scotland?
But the odds are shortening on a formal investigation and as the former Chief Whip he knows where the skeletons are. And the rmore Number 10 refuses to refer the issue to the Met for formal investigation, the more likely people are to believe that there is something to hide which they know professional investigators could well uncover.
Last edited by Melchett01; 2nd May 2019 at 11:46.
Jacko
An excellent post but I’m afraid I must reprimand you for a severe breech of Pprune RoE.
Why would you bring actual experience based on personal encounters to a conversation that is clearly better served by supposition and hearsay?
I expected better from you.
BV
😉
Why would you bring actual experience based on personal encounters to a conversation that is clearly better served by supposition and hearsay?
I expected better from you.
BV
😉
