advertisement


UK ambassador to US resigns

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.

I say.

OK, it is a matter of opinion.

But there is a massive difference between public interest (people should know because they are being lied to or government is up to no good) and some members of the public being interested (juicy sexy secrets etc). I think publishing the cables of a UK Ambassador just doing his job (everyone has said he was just doing his job and was doing nothing wrong) falls into the second category. i.e. some people may be interested but it is not in the public interest. And is has damaged the UK's relationship with the US and vice versa.

If the press can print any leaked information without any possibility of being prosecuted then we should let them publish nuclear launch codes, the secret addresses of people in protective custody, the correspondence between the DHSS and a single mother of 4 on her benefit entitlements given her part time job as an exotic dancer. Because some people will be interested.

Then there is also the concern over why they were published. Was it just to sell newspapers? Or was there something more sinister behind it? What if, just for example, someone who might be the Prime Minister of the UK in a few days times wanted to make some agreements with the US early in their term, but saw the civil service and the current UK Ambassador and his staff as a possible blocker to this, but can't find a legitimate way to get rid of him. So maybe turned to some likeminded people on the political right who have been very supportive of his campaign and just happen to run a newspaper - and are happy to take some privileged emails of his (or her) hands... ...now THAT would be public interest. Or whatever other reason the source had for doing this. And that is why the press should be chatting to the Metropolitan Police right now. Probably under caution.

I am happy to fight and die for press freedom. When exercised responsibly.
 
I agree the leak was not nothing more than a political move by Oakshit for Boris but the police have no place to say what can or can't be published or what is or isn't in the publics interest.

The fact is the material is out there now and they should be dealing with finding the leak rather than using the press angle as a distraction.

PS the OSA does not dictate what can or can't be published, the AG has to make that decision on a case by case basis, the OSA is deliberately ambiguous for this reason (I know the OSA very well having been bound by it and others for the last 30 years)

I just get annoyed when these agencies start making statements or comments when it is not in their remit to be doing so, they should stay well clear of politics and the press and get on with their jobs. The security services have become far too public facing and integrated with govts/politicians in power.

I care less for what is published by the press and more about how it was leaked or given to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cav
How come the Huawei leak was not pursued as a criminal investigation then? I'd suggest that it also 'damaged UK international relations.'

It will have affected our possible future relationship with both China and the USA, never mind that it was a leak from the National Security Council ffs!

Stephen
 
How come the Huawei leak was not pursued as a criminal investigation then? I'd suggest that it also 'damaged UK international relations.'

It will have affected our possible future relationship with both China and the USA, never mind that it was a leak from the National Security Council ffs!

Stephen

Should have been.
 
The fact is the material is out there now and they should be dealing with finding the leak rather than using the press angle as a distraction.

PS the OSA does not dictate what can or can't be published, the AG has to make that decision on a case by case basis, the OSA is deliberately ambiguous for this reason (I know the OSA very well having been bound by it and others for the last 30 years)

I just get annoyed when these agencies start making statements or comments when it is not in their remit to be doing so, they should stay well clear of politics and the press and get on with their jobs. The security services have become far too public facing and integrated with govts/politicians in power.

I care less for what is published by the press and more about how it was leaked or given to them.

So even if a crime or a number of crimes may have been committed, we should ignore everyone except the person who leaked the information because "the fact is the material is out there now"?

The OSA is not the only relevant law here. A newspaper could be prosecuted under a number of different acts for publishing stolen information.

I care less for punishing the original source (although that should be done) and more about who and why was involved in deciding to publish it and what their motivation were. And if they were in any way criminal, prosecuting them. That may or may not involve the press - but it certainly means they should be being interviewed by the police.

(And given the terrorist legislation involved, previously lauded by The Mail, they could be easily kept in custody for up to 30 days during the questioning. Because that would be some rather nice poetic justice right there!)
 
I think we are coming at this from different directions, I'm not concerned with the motives but that diplomats should who should feel safe and free to express opinions or views (or any information) are being compromised.

Stop or prevent the leak from happening and you don't have to worry about the press.
 
If the press can print any leaked information without any possibility of being prosecuted ...

'If' being the operative word. In practice if the ptb believe a crime has been committed, and probability of conviction is appropriate, there will be one or more prosecutions.
 
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.

I'd say this communication is covered by the official secrets act, and so disclosure of it's contents is a criminal act. Freedom of the press is all very well, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the law does it?
 
I'd say this communication is covered by the official secrets act, and so disclosure of it's contents is a criminal act. Freedom of the press is all very well, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the law does it?
People ignore the Law every day. Whether publishing a news story is against the Law is, firstly, a matter for the publishers lawyers, and secondly for the CPS. The Police are merely intermediaries.
 
It was Isabel Oakeshitt who revealed Sir Kim Darroch's emails criticizing Trump. She is also in a relationship with The Brexit Party's chairman Richard Tice, according to the Mirror. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/polit...0uV1I9vCmUon6mvU8TmJOKXAy7R6qqYbw2z2UNvV6-mgY

As a friend of mine on Facebook said "She's such a right wing stooge."

"The journalist who sparked the resignation of Britain’s US ambassador is in a relationship with Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party chairman.

"Isabel Oakeshott – who revealed Sir Kim Darroch’s leaked Donald Trump emails – has been with MEP Richard Tice since last year."

No doubt Johnson's friend Steve Bannon is somewhere close by laughing.

Jack
 
So a free press, but only as free as you choose?

With freedom comes responsibility. Read the Leveson Inquiry: "An inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press" to find out why they utterly fail in this respect. It's a tough call as to whether the press or the politicians are the most morally bankrupt, but suffice to say I trust neither!
 


advertisement


Back
Top