Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Oh dear... Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson sacked over Huawei leak.

His usage of language is so classic tory isn't it. He didn't tell the reporter when he was asked about it. That much is probably true. He doesn't deny that he told the reporter before or after he was asked though. It's like the ones that say 'I refute the allegation' rather than 'I deny the allegation'.Refute means to prove wrong, typically with evidence, which the person saying it typically isn't doing at the time. It sounds like deny, but it isn't.

The "refute" thing boils my piss every time.
This "withdrawing the whip" thing too... surprised we haven't found more MP corpses with fresh produce in their orifices over recent years.
 
His usage of language is so classic tory isn't it. He didn't tell the reporter when he was asked about it. That much is probably true. He doesn't deny that he told the reporter before or after he was asked though. It's like the ones that say 'I refute the allegation' rather than 'I deny the allegation'.Refute means to prove wrong, typically with evidence, which the person saying it typically isn't doing at the time. It sounds like deny, but it isn't.

He swore on his kids life he didnt do it.

:rolleyes:
 
I liked:
May’s spokesman said:
“It’s not for the government to determine prosecutions, but the prime minister has said, from her point of view, that she considers the matter to be closed.”

Obviously it's not actually up to me whether he gets nicked or not but I AM PRIME MINISTER and I don't want it AND I AM PRIME MINISTER kthxbai
 
This accusation is that he broke the Official Secrets Act. That would seem to be a prima facie case of criminality. I don't think it's up to May to decide that the matter is closed.

actually, according to frantic backpeddalling, the accusation is that he broke the ministerial code - the sensible thing would to have been to have avoided accusing him of the leak, and just stated that his response to the leak enquiry was unsettling for the PM, that she no longer had confidence in him, and that therefore he was no longer Defence Secretary.

however, the OSA accusation is out of the bag and there's little the PM can do to throw a net over it.

any prosecution of Williamson (or whoever else gets embroiled in this debacle) is however going to face a problem - the leak was not primarily of operational/intelligence information, it was of political information: that 5 members of the NSA voted against Huawei, 5 for, and that the PM had the casting vote. that is, theoretically, covered by the OSA, but so is the lunch menu at Shrivenham, as it is only information that i could glean from my duties. no one has - i hope - ever been prosecuted for revealing the lunch menu at Shrivenham as, although its obviously still official information, its just 'meh', as is who voted for what.
 
Good to see the filth being impartial here...

Scotland Yard said in a statement that it was a matter for the National Security Council and the Cabinet Office, and it was not carrying out an investigation.

"Clearly, if at any stage we receive any information that would suggest criminal offences have been committed, then we will look into that," it added.

Nothing to suggest a criminal offence, nothing.
 
actually, according to frantic backpeddalling, the accusation is that he broke the ministerial code - the sensible thing would to have been to have avoided accusing him of the leak, and just stated that his response to the leak enquiry was unsettling for the PM, that she no longer had confidence in him, and that therefore he was no longer Defence Secretary.

however, the OSA accusation is out of the bag and there's little the PM can do to throw a net over it.

any prosecution of Williamson (or whoever else gets embroiled in this debacle) is however going to face a problem - the leak was not primarily of operational/intelligence information, it was of political information: that 5 members of the NSA voted against Huawei, 5 for, and that the PM had the casting vote. that is, theoretically, covered by the OSA, but so is the lunch menu at Shrivenham, as it is only information that i could glean from my duties. no one has - i hope - ever been prosecuted for revealing the lunch menu at Shrivenham as, although its obviously still official information, its just 'meh', as is who voted for what.

For sure the information is fairly low grade stuff. I just want a police investigation to happen because they almost certainly wouldn't be able to prove anything which would then be used against May. I just want to see as much chaos as possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom