PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Gavin Williamson Sacked over Huawei Leaks (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/621077-gavin-williamson-sacked-over-huawei-leaks.html)

NutLoose 2nd May 2019 13:01

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.

Asturias56 2nd May 2019 17:55

"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.......

AnglianAV8R 2nd May 2019 19:01

In Defence of Gavin Williamson?s Right to Defend Himself

Harley Quinn 2nd May 2019 19:42

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."

Onceapilot 2nd May 2019 20:38


Originally Posted by Jackonicko (Post 10461229)
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.

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! :ok:

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

OAP

Lima Juliet 2nd May 2019 21:08


Blossy 2nd May 2019 22:01

Just shows how powerful political cartoons can be!

baffman 2nd May 2019 22:49


Originally Posted by Chugalug2 (Post 10461155)
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.

Melchett01 2nd May 2019 23:42


Originally Posted by baffman (Post 10461556)
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.

Cornish Jack 2nd May 2019 23:42

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!!:yuk:

Phantom Driver 2nd May 2019 23:48

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 )

NutLoose 3rd May 2019 01:04


Lyneham Lad 3rd May 2019 11:43

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...


Krystal n chips 3rd May 2019 12:44

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

A_Van 3rd May 2019 12:57


Originally Posted by Auxtank (Post 10460715)
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 :-)

AnglianAV8R 3rd May 2019 13:11

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b69a628244.jpg

langleybaston 3rd May 2019 16:47


Originally Posted by Cornish Jack (Post 10461573)
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!!:yuk:

"precedent" I think.
"precedence" is as in "first among equals" like a WO SWO among WOs on his RAF station/base or whatever.

Lima Juliet 3rd May 2019 19:52

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

langleybaston 3rd May 2019 22:02

What kind of a sicko keeps saying "Clearly the people want us to get my deal across the line"?

Jackonicko 3rd May 2019 23:57

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."


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:56.


Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.