Gavin Williamson Sacked over Huawei Leaks
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,752
Received 2,731 Likes
on
1,163 Posts
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.
"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.......
well of course you like him - he generated a lot of copy.......
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."
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."
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.
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
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
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
(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.
(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.
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!!
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 )
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 )
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,752
Received 2,731 Likes
on
1,163 Posts
Extract from a column in today's The Times by Max Hastings:-
Clearly not a fan...
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.
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.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 98 Likes
on
69 Posts
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
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...or-haplessness
Last edited by Krystal n chips; 3rd May 2019 at 12:00.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 :-)
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!!
"precedence" is as in "first among equals" like a WO SWO among WOs on his RAF station/base or whatever.
What kind of a sicko keeps saying "Clearly the people want us to get my deal across the line"?
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."
"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."
