Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Gavin Williamson Sacked over Huawei Leaks

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Gavin Williamson Sacked over Huawei Leaks

Old 2nd May 2019, 12:01
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,988
As the police appear to be content to let the matter lie unless a complaint is made, if he is squeaky clean over this he could bring it to the police himself, that would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 16:55
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 0
"One of the perks of being a defence journo is that one gets to meet many Defence Ministers and senior officers."

well of course you like him - he generated a lot of copy.......
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 18:01
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West of Suez
Posts: 243
In Defence of Gavin Williamson?s Right to Defend Himself
AnglianAV8R is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 18:42
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 532
Did he do it or didn't he? I have no idea but I am more concerned over what information is now going to be withheld by the international intelligence community, the rest of the 'five eyes'.

Can't you just imagine the scene;

"Gee Mr President we have hard evidence of a dirty device in London, England. We think they're going to detonate it on New Year's Eve. We should really tell those guys in MI5."

"How did we get this Intel?" asks America's first female president.

"From our special source" comes the answer.

"No way am I endangering our source on those stupid, untrustworthy limeys, ever, period. Now get uncle Vladimir on the phone."
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 19:38
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
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 PPRuNe.
Pity you mulled it over until lunchtime THE NEXT DAY to post, instead of within about 1 hour of the event!

As for the value of a journos opinion in this...similar to mine!

In my time, I met quite a few Pollies, inc PM's and Defence Ministers. I was never impressed!

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 20:08
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,868
Stupid boy...


Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 21:01
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: West Country
Posts: 10
Just shows how powerful political cartoons can be!
Blossy is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 21:49
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 260
Originally Posted by Chugalug2 View Post
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Lord O'Donnell (former Cabinet Secretary) reported on the BBC News Site as saying on the Today Programme :-

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
The test for a breach of the Official Secrets Act is not, however, "putting people's lives at risk" but making "damaging" disclosure.
baffman is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 22:42
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,494
Originally Posted by baffman View Post
The test for a breach of the Official Secrets Act is not, however, "putting people's lives at risk" but making "damaging" disclosure.
Loss of life and injury is covered as part of the definition of a damaging disclosure
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is damaging if—

(a)it damages the capability of, or of any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks or leads to loss of life or injury to members of those forces or serious damage to the equipment or installations of those forces; or

(b)otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad; or

(c)it is of information or of a document or article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.
There are other details in the MOD's own JSP on security, but as that hasn't been released onto Gov.UK, I don't intend to have my own breach by going into them here! All that said, the press reports suggest that even the Cabinet Secretary has admitted he didn't breach the OSA, so it would appear that there is no criminal case to answer. In which case, where is the smoking gun? Looking more and more like a sacking of political convenience. I doubt he will be suing for wrongful dismissal, but this could well have the making of May's own Watergate if it runs.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 22:42
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,215
Previous contributors may or may not have valid views/comments on this episode but, for me, most interesting was the Deputy PM's Urgent Statement and his responses to questions in the HofC. Most particularly his insistence that the lack of intent to prosecute was "because this was a matter of principle". That reply will have been witten into Hansard and, as such, will constitute 'precedence'. "So what?", you may say. It means that, theoretically, any future similar conduct which could be similarly defined, would also be WITHOUT threat of retribution. So, just which matters of national importance and security can be classified as 'matters of principle'? ... and politicians having principles might furrow a brow or two!!
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 2nd May 2019, 22:48
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 280
All this noise about -"show us the evidence " ; bottom line is . PM can appoint/sack whoever he/she likes . It was her choice . However , the implications of such action further down the road is another matter .
Methinks Private Pike doth complaineth too much for one with a lot of form in these areas . As for "swearing on the lives of my children", or " I made her (May) so I can break her " ; no further comment......
(p,s don't let me start on arming milk floats or pedalos from Cleethorpes )
Phantom Driver is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 00:04
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,988
NutLoose is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 10:43
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 72
Posts: 1,014
Extract from a column in today's The Times by Max Hastings:-

Defence chiefs assemble today in Westminster Abbey for what some people think a bizarre occasion. Clergy will confer a blessing on 50 years of the Royal Navy’s submarine nuclear deterrent. Yet the brass now has a pleasing opportunity to rebrand the service as a thanksgiving for delivery from Gavin Williamson. Nobody will mind getting down on their knees for that.

The sacked defence secretary inspired heroic disdain among those obliged to work with him, ministers and public servants alike. He represented a mismatch between ambition and ability that seemed striking even by the standards of this government.

Williamson believed he could use his office as a stepping stone to the premiership. He advanced personal initiatives — for instance, to restore Britain’s “out of area” capabilities, projecting power far afield — which exasperated both Downing Street and service chiefs. His personal behaviour was crass: he scrawled an obscenity about Theresa May on a written rebuke from her office, which shocked his own staff as much as it will startle historians when eventually they get the chance to read it.

I know no one in the defence and political loop who is not confident of Williamson’s culpability for the leak from the National Security Council which cost him his job. Indeed, their anger focuses upon the prime minister’s refusal to trigger a criminal investigation into a breach of the Official Secrets Act for which he might be convicted by a court.
Clearly not a fan...

Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 11:44
  #54 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 920
This may also suggest a less than illustrious tenure.....but, as C4 News suggested, he can now spend more time with his puppies...which is a comforting thought really.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...or-haplessness

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 3rd May 2019 at 12:00.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 11:57
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 61
Posts: 514
Originally Posted by Auxtank View Post
Agreed also.

I blame the Russians. ... .
And why not the Chinese? This guy seemed to be an outstanding seller of the Chinese ceramic tableware :-) So, by quitting this business he made a great damage to the Chinese economy. Having him back should have been a dream of manufacturers of this crap :-)
A_Van is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 12:11
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West of Suez
Posts: 243
AnglianAV8R is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 15:47
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,617
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
Previous contributors may or may not have valid views/comments on this episode but, for me, most interesting was the Deputy PM's Urgent Statement and his responses to questions in the HofC. Most particularly his insistence that the lack of intent to prosecute was "because this was a matter of principle". That reply will have been witten into Hansard and, as such, will constitute 'precedence'. "So what?", you may say. It means that, theoretically, any future similar conduct which could be similarly defined, would also be WITHOUT threat of retribution. So, just which matters of national importance and security can be classified as 'matters of principle'? ... and politicians having principles might furrow a brow or two!!
"precedent" I think.
"precedence" is as in "first among equals" like a WO SWO among WOs on his RAF station/base or whatever.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 18:52
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,868
What kind of sicko keeps a bird eating spider in the Houses of Parliament? Oh yes, Private Pike...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...tula-mhpllgpw8
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 21:02
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,617
What kind of a sicko keeps saying "Clearly the people want us to get my deal across the line"?
langleybaston is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 22:57
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,923
I rarely find myself agreeing with Jacob Rees Mogg, but his tweet:

"The security issue is not who leaked but Huawei." seems to be on the money.

He subsequently said the same on LBC. "A leak from a meeting of the national Security Council is 'trivial' compared to the risk of letting Huawei get a foothold in the UK telecoms industry."
Jackonicko is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.