UKC

I've signed the official secrets act and if I revelled any secrets I can bet my bottom dollar that I would have been prosecuted.

So should the Defence Secretary face criminal proceedings now that he has been sacked for revealing secrets?

“Signing the official secrets act” has bugger all do do with having to keep a secret. It’s a law like any other, and we are all bound by it.  As with all other laws, ignorance is no excuse.

The whole “signing” (of what is basically a memo) business is just to put that particular law at the forefront of someone’s mind.

I did wonder if the Chinese orchestrated the leak as well as the “evidence” of it, to get Williamson out.

Ohhh, like what?

But yes I think they should, but no I don't think they will

I don't really know but I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I've always thought he was a bit of a dick.

The Alan Partridge of the parliamentary Conservative party.

That's a huge insult to Alan Partridge...

If foreign state agents (Chinese or otherwise), wanted to really damage the UK, they'd have worked to keep Williamson IN government. 

I believe the correct comparison is Private Pike.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/11/gavin-williamson-enhances-...

I normally go for incompetence over conspiracy but there’s so much incompetence on both the government and Huawei sides it’s hard to know what’s really going on.  

But it is odd that the UK is taking such a different line to the other nations we share intelligence with.  Then again it’s odd that the mistrust is so heaped on one company when most of the alternatives manufacture their kit in China as well.  

I'm guessing that the Conservatives are trying to lay foundations for further trade negotiations with China post Brexit. They do have 'form' for short term profit leading to decades of misery lamenting their quick gains.

America is concerned about a partner of The Five Eyes letting secrets leach away through communications designed and built by China. And Huawei strongly denies any involvement in supporting the cause of China's political will.

All this from a country, America, which makes its own tech companies sign The Patriot's Act which forces to make them help the US Government when called upon and to deny all knowledge of assisting them.

And how about a company in the USA which designed, created and marketed an operating system used practically all over the world which has proprietary code that can be used by them to add or remove software at will without the owner's knowledge or consent, in the name of software stability?

Don't believe me?

How many of those who own Window's 10 have noticed software either being added or removed with various essential updates with the excuse that this was done for stability of the operating system?

What's to stop the USA turning these operating systems into mass surveillance tools in the same way that they are now accusing Huawei of doing at the bidding of the Chinese government?

All 'Tin Hat' conspiracy theory?

Snowden does not think so.

I tnink if he did face criminal charges and I was his defence lawyer, I'd be going down the 'diminished capacity' route.

A lot of competition for that position.

I would have thought they had their fingers crossed for Chris Grayling as his replacement.........

Whether or not there is enough evidence to prosecute the decision should not be the PM's to make. Announcing that the sacking is the end of the matter looks like a clear case of perverting the course of justice.

Give Williamson his idiotic day in court, then prosecute May for interfering 

Indeed: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5giBrvWwAEniHD?format=jpg&name=small

Unlike Williamson, the Chinese aren't stupid, despite him throwing a few insults at them, I suspect they would rather have him as Defence Secretary, as opposed to someone even slightly competent. Obviously, given the pool of talent that May has to choose from, there is minimal risk of someone fitting that description getting the job.

I really enjoyed newsnight tonight.

The Tories were fighting like rats in a sack.

At least its resulted in Rory Sterwart moving somewhere useful, and possibly dodging his self directed bullet.

Well done for pointing that out. I've never understood why people 'signing' this thing makes them any different to anyone else

I might go for the 'national interest' defence.

The current British government must be an absolute nightmare for foreign espionage types - they’re so illogical, incompetent and so motivated by totally bizarre things.  It’s possible they want a government they can understand even if they’re more hostile...

.... Who announces that Bert's Mobile Phones of Lumsden, have won the contract to build the UK's new 5G network.   

I'm cynical enough to think this enquiry has been carried out and concluded at breakneck speed because the PM was personally embarrassed by the leak. It said the PM was advised, by the security agencies, to have nothing to do with Huawei but decided take no notice of the advice.

I find it difficult to understand that the leak is serious enough for him to lose his job but not serious enough for a criminal investigation given the alleged, " compelling evidence suggesting your responsibility for the unauthorised disclosure. "

However, Gavin Williamson's sacking and the minor reshuffle have saved Rory Stewart from the embarrassment of having to resign over drugs and violence in prisons -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45214414

Dave

Bert's Pizzas, more like...

A criminal investigation might not come to the "right" answer...

Is May the first PM in history to have had a disgraced former Defence Secretary in her cabinet that she could have shuffled in to replace the disgraced former Defence Secretary if she'd wanted to?

we don't know what the evidence against him is. cobbling together sufficient evidence to justify sacking him is a very different matter to presenting a case that will succeed at a criminal trial.

if the evidence is there, then he absolutely should be prosecuted in my view

Perhaps the best thing to do would be for him to publicly authorize the journalist concerned to reveal the contents of their discussion to the police/other investigators. If he's innocent that shouldn't be a problem (if the journalist chose to lie on his behalf that would probably render prosecution unlikely anyway).

A reporter was on r4 this morning. They are unsurprisingly very cunning with their wording. 

Reporter;"If I reported that x says this and that in the meeting, would that be close to what occurred?" 

MP, "yes, something like that".

Then off the press go filling in the gaps. The interview the Defence Secretary gave over the phone was 11mins long. That's plenty time to infer many things, whilst leaving no physical trail. Unless said reporter recorded it, which would seem prudent and any mp should presume they are being recorded. 

Which may of course been gathered illegally or in a manner which can't be disclosed, perhaps for security reasons, perhaps because it would destabilise the tottering wreckage of our government if for example it emerges MI5 put/has the whole cabinet under surveillance.

jk

I suspect you might be right. It looks very much like TM, in her usual stupidity, has ignored all advice and was hoping to slide the Huawei deal in unnoticed. 

Williamson his sticking to his line that it was nothing to do with him, and I can't help thinking TM is scapegoating him.

I think he was spotted having a free Chow Mein  at the Fun Wah. Circumstantial, but suspicious nonetheless 

Do the CPS decide if there is enough evidence for something to go to trial?

The Defence Sec admits to evidence on his phone that he contacted a specific reporter on the day at the relevant time. He denies discussing the events of the meeting with the reporter.

It just so happens that the specific reporter then published news about a leaked meeting which the Defence Sec attended.

I'd say there was enough evidence for an investigation.

Sadly it's easy to catch a thief but almost impossible to catch a lier.

"You might say that; I couldn't possibly comment." only gets you so far. Williamson probably thinks he's the only person to have watched House of Cards. If you're going to be Machiavellian (sic?) you first need to be clever instead of being a dolt. 

....Unless said reporter recorded it, which would seem prudent and any mp should presume they are being recorded. 

We should ask the Americans. They're sure to have  a recording of the conversation.

No,  she's definitely in the right.   No reason at all why we shouldn't have fitted innocent seeming parts of our infrastructure by faceless men from Huwaei who will then, presumably, together with other faceless colleagues, have continuing plausible access to those areas for "maintenance and support".   You don't need sleepers when you have bought your way into someone's infrastructure.

No risk there, innocent passive hardware, move along please ...

Whoever leaked alerted the country to the way the PM continues her long history of poor judgement in secret sessions concerning our nation's security

New from Proctor & Shambles for those irritating and uncomfortable leaks of Bile;

Gavisgone 

He denies it and claims he is innocent. As, under English Law, you are innocent until proven guilty, then, yes, he should face criminal charges if only to clear his name. If found guilty then he should face the consequences.

Or our friends the Chinese...

Indeed. They have by far and away the best terms and conditions, which any sensible secretary of state would have as a prerequisite for such strategic link-ups......

Surely the Russians ...

There is more truth in that comment than many would wish to accept. As part of the Five Eyes, there is mass surveillance in the name of national security. And as long as these  communications pass through servers in other sympathetic countries then the mass collection of data can be saved and stored. No crime done or threat to civil liberties there then.

Wonder why the USA and Theresa May are so frustrated by encrypted conversations through apps like Watsapp and want ways to circumvent the encryption?

There are ways to bypass the encryption but that involves tampering with the phone in a 'spooks' way.

Technically he wasn't sacked for revealing any secrets, they sacked him for his conduct during the investigations and also said that there was no other credible explanation to support it being anyone else who did it...

So they're not saying explicitly that he did it and they're sacking him for it.  They're sacking him for his conduct, and they reckon he did do it anyway.

Hang on! I thought we were being controlled by the EU. Is everybody controlling us then? 

Anybody who has been involved in workplace disciplinary processes will tell you that you need a lesser burden of proof than for criminal proceedings. In any case the Prime Minister ought to be able to reshuffle at any point if she feels she simply can't trust a minister. She sacked Nicky Morgan for dissing her leather trousers... 

Maybe Nicky saw a wire in those hot leather pants. And TM thought "Fec I almost got spotted as a secret Chinese Mole."

I find it a bit unfair - she only has to say "I no longer have full confidence ..." and yet she can go on forever while a large number of people have NO CONFIDENCE in her or, to put it another way, FULL CONFIDENCE that she is making a shambles

I've got more of a problem with the Tories allowing Huawei to supply core 5G infrastructure than somebody leaking the fact that they were doing so.    

https://twitter.com/martindvz/status/1123914996843515907

Half of Huawei UK's directors apparently used to work for David Cameron.

This is a consequence of Brexit: distancing ourselves from Europe is weakening our position and making us so desperate to get trade with China that we need to accept anything they demand even if it means making our core communications infrastructure completely dependent on their goodwill.   They could turn off our phone network or spy on anything which isn't end-to-end encrypted at will.  It's brain dead to buy that stuff from anyone that isn't a close ally.

Gavin Williamson should have been sacked long ago for that bullsh*t about sailing our aircraft carrier next to China.   He's acting like a Trump surrogate pushing the US line on China.   

The party had a vote on her confidence and TM won that vote. I think that she won the vote because Tory MPs thought first and foremost about themselves rather than the party and country in general.

They all wanted to keep their jobs. If TM went, then they would follow months or weeks later once a General Election was called.

that just about sums it all up

Don't worry because Sumo will come along any moment to blame the Vote of Confidence results on Corbyn.

She's leading a party that is a complete shambles full of ultra right wing kippers, fools and dullards. If that lot have no confidence in her it's because she's not making as big a shambles as they'd like her to make.

Now that he's denied it I think a police enquiry may be appropriate.

In a criminal investigation one is required to supply evidence of various forms and answer questions. While Williamson would of course continue to lie his arse off I don't see how the reporter could avoid telling the police who gave him the story.

I think the reporter should be punished as well if they have also broken the official secrets act.

Reporters have an established right in European law to protect their sources, although national security is a possible exemption. Any reporter worth their salt wouldn't answer the question without putting up a fight.

Fair enough but there does seem to be an exception to this which covers this case:

In the interests of national security

Where national security is concerned the necessity for disclosure of the source will be almost automatic. Keeping information concerning national security confidential outweighs the right to keep the source confidential.

This is because the people divulging information regarding national security will usually be those employed in government and therefore have an obligation of confidentiality. If someone in this position is willing to provide information to the press, they are not fulfilling their role as a trusted servant to the government and will need to be indentified and removed from their position to protect national security.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/media-law/journalists-sources/

My Westminster sources suggest GW is telling the truth, but also that he knows who leaked - and apparently it's a bit of a game changer if it gets out...

I think it makes them easier to punish, possibly liable to a greater degree of punishment and brings home the seriousness of contravening it.  On the other hand it also says you are only guilty of a misdemeanor if caught. When I worked for Orange, the Mobile Phone Company, I was interviewed by the French Security Services and a big deal was made about my signing a similar, in principle, document. They seemed to take it far more seriously than the Official Secrets Act and threatened far more dire consequences.

Al

That sounds interesting and very scary at the same time. Surely the only person more senior would be Theresa May?

I don't know who it is, but GW is fuming....

I understand it's also worth noting the news story buried by the GW news.

Kindly unbury then. Thanks.

Huawei already provide a lot of the 3g kit in the UK. The US and Australian decisions are highly politicised - I don't know the reality

Chris Grayling cancels ferry contracts at £50m cost to taxpayers (not the £14m originally claimed).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/01/chris-grayling-cancels-ferr...

Thanks, a mere bagatell, hasn't he squandered 2.5 billion or something?

Suggesting the Royal Navy should fire paintball guns at Spanish Navy vessels is also not top-of-the-class diplomacy...

Maybe the UK needs a constitution that puts some stricter limits on the personal power of the PM?

If PM Rutte were to behave like May, both his own party and his coalition partners would have brought him down long ago.

BTW, I do think sacking GW was a good move, especially stopping the leaver remainer balance in the cabinet and replacing him with a sensible person. It is all just 2 years too late....

You think Penny Mordaunt is sensible??!!

I was refering to Stewart

Ah, ok. My bad!

He is our local MP and while I think he is intelligent, articulate and well motivated he is a bit too much of a conformist to the party line at times

He's just indicated that he couldn't continue in the Tories if Boris Johnson became prime minister. He's trying to hold the line for One Nation Conservatism, a respectable stance, unlike what seems like the rest of the parliamentary party who are either true kipnutters or careerists running scared of Farage