advertisement


UK ambassador to US resigns

Was the writing on the wall when Blair sided with the liars of USA in the illegal war on Iraq instead of the principled stand with the EU ?
 
I've not seen any reports of anyone helping plod with their enquiries yet.

Hopefully JC will be asking the PM everyWednesday how the enquiry is getting on.
 
Swamp Thing said:
I've not seen any reports of anyone helping plod with their enquiries yet.
Click to expand...

The Met’s finest are on it-

“Announcing the criminal investigation, Assistant Commissioner Basu said he was satisfied the alleged leak had damaged UK international relations”.

Running his fingers over Ms. Oakeshott’s desk, Officer Basu said “ allo, allo allo, what have we here then?”.
 
In that case he'd better launch a probe into every MP promoting the insanity of a no deal Brexit, as that will certainly damage UK international relations. In fact, I'd say that the Conservatives have already done a good job of that over the last three years.
 
I expect this point has already been made, but if so, I’ll make it again.

There seems to be a lot of froth about Darrock’s resignation, most of it aimed at Johnson. But surely if there was a real point to be made about the sanctity of Diptels and a foreign government deciding who will be in our civil service, then someone should’ve said to Darroch that he must not resign, that this is a matter of fundamental principle the we must defend at all costs. That someone would have to be someone in a position of authority within out government. Some like, say, the Foreign Secretary?

Johnson is not after all, in government.

We know Darroch resigned, but who accepted it?
 
iiuc the public interest aspect is mainly that such an email has been leaked (iow who did it & why?), and not the contents.
 
Still said:
iiuc the public interest aspect is mainly that such an email has been leaked (iow who did it & why?), and not the contents.
Click to expand...

Yes. In particular, it damages our national interest as it undermines the ability of the government *we* elect to choose *our* diplomats and have them report honestly, warts and all.

I can understand a journalist being keen to publish it as it helps to sell newspapers and make them feel more important. But whoever leaked the confidential info should be found and dealt with, if only to deter a reoccurance.
 
Given there is no public interest defence in this case (over actually releasing the contents) then I don't see why the press should not be banged up for not releasing their sources. The source has broken the law. It would also be interesting to ensure that this was not the case of cheque book journalism, i.e. let us also make sure that the newspaper did not incite the crime. Given the players involved, it is possible that this is part of a wider conspiracy. In which case (again) placing charges against the journalists may be reasonable.
 
Last edited:
We must not lose sight of the fact that behind this rumpus lies the most insulting insult, to be called a stupid man is bad enough but add in fact that it is said by the most stupid man in the world is doubly insulting.
 
Swamp Thing said:
Given there is no public interest defence in this case (over actually releasing the contents) then I don't see why the press should not be banged up for not releasing their sources. The source has broken the law. It would also be interesting to ensure that this was not the case of cheque book journalism, i.e. let us also make sure that the newspaper did not incite the crime. Given the players involved, it is possible that this is part of a wider conspiracy. In which case (again) placing charges against the journalists may be reasonable.
Click to expand...

Who's to say it's not in the public interest, I'm sure there's many British supporters of The Donald who would be very interested in what is being said about him.

Freedom of the press should not be restricted and the police or security services need to get on with with finding the leak without passing opinions on what the press can or cannot do. It's not their place to be saying or expressing opinions on such things.
 
thebiglebowski said:
Who's to say it's not in the public interest, I'm sure there's many British supporters of The Donald who would be very interested in what is being said about him.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out, that falls into an interpretation trap due to the way English Language tends to use the same set of letters for more than one distinct meaning.

The word 'interest' has more than one meaning. As with the term 'liberal' this can lead to confusing thought: e.g. as the way 'liberal' is deployed in 'neo-liberal' means that the 'neo' actually means 'not'. :) It does, of course, suit some politicians and journalists to muddle such meanings when it is to their advantage. Part of the rhetoric they were taught at their public (sic, again) schools...
 
thebiglebowski said:
Freedom of the press should not be restricted and the police or security services need to get on with with finding the leak without passing opinions on what the press can or cannot do. It's not their place to be saying or expressing opinions on such things.
Click to expand...

Well AIUI it is fairly normal for the police to say when they suspect a crime may have been committed, and to also say that they are or will investigate, etc.

Like it or not the OSA, etc, *do* limit what can be published. And you don't need to have signed a section of it to fall under the remit of the other sections. "Freedom of the press" is not absolute in the UK, regardless of if you like that or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top