Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on May 01, 2019, 07:59:55 PM
-
Extraordinary
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48126974
-
It is: and hopefully this will be the final nail in the coffin of this bunch of incompetent Tories masquerading as a government.
I see my local MP has written to the police quoting Theresa May's letter and requesting that a criminal investigation is instigated, so it seems unlikely this will quietly go away.
-
It is: and hopefully this will be the final nail in the coffin of this bunch of incompetent Tories masquerading as a government.
Trouble is every time you think it is the final nail, they rise like the undead to stumble zombie-like through the devastated landscape of this disunited kingdom.
May is remarkable for her tenacious grip on non power.
-
Surely this has to be investigated?
-
Surely this has to be investigated?
I think it does, not least because he has strenuously denied it. And if he did do it there should be more sanction than just losing his job as a minister - he would have breached the official secrets act.
-
I think it does, not least because he has strenuously denied it. And if he did do it there should be more sanction than just losing his job as a minister - he would have breached the official secrets act.
Also the letter covering his sacking doesn't say that he was actually the leak, just that his behaviour during the 'investigation' was not satisfactory.
-
I'm quite conflicted about this. On the assumption that he is guilty, he definitely needs to be fired at the very least. However, what he leaked also concerns me. Despite their denials, Huawei is in the pocket of the Chinese government and has deliberately compromised its devices in the past. This is stuff we ought to know about.
-
I think it does, not least because he has strenuously denied it. And if he did do it there should be more sanction than just losing his job as a minister - he would have breached the official secrets act.
Yes - but it seems unlikely that further investigation could establish the truth without full disclosure by the journalist. Williamson seems to have been the obvious prime suspect, and suggested as such, from the off.
-
Also the letter covering his sacking doesn't say that he was actually the leak, just that his behaviour during the 'investigation' was not satisfactory.
In the BBC story we have:
In a meeting with Mr Williamson on Wednesday evening, Theresa May told him she had information that provided "compelling evidence" that he was responsible for the unauthorised disclosure.
In a letter confirming his dismissal, she said: "No other, credible version of events to explain this leak has been identified."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48126974
-
I'm quite conflicted about this. On the assumption that he is guilty, he definitely needs to be fired at the very least. However, what he leaked also concerns me. Despite their denials, Huawei is in the pocket of the Chinese government and has deliberately compromised its devices in the past. This is stuff we ought to know about.
But the decision re. Huawei was not the information leaked from the meeting. The leak was political, designed to discredit the PM.
-
In the BBC story we have:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48126974
Which surely means it cannot just be left there?
-
The police should be looking into this matter, as it is very serious.
-
So for the police to investigate this the Cabinet Office have to request it, apparently but this appears not to be happening. So the Tory govt are effectively stopping the investigation. Shameful!
-
And if they think Williamson is guilty then allowing him to keep the whip is just condoning the action
-
I suspect that - by sacking him and sending him back to the backbenches and not furthering any formal investigation into the leak - Theresa May has just added another self-inflicted problem to the many she labours under.
Williamson was Chief Whip. He knows where the bodies are buried ...
-
What exactly does compelling evidence mean?
Evidence is straightforward. It is material which supports the case that a particular state of affairs exists.
But compelling evidence? Does this suggest that the case is not strong but with a little effort or twist could be perceived as being stronger?
-
What exactly does compelling evidence mean?
Evidence is straightforward. It is material which supports the case that a particular state of affairs exists.
But compelling evidence? Does this suggest that the case is not strong but with a little effort or twist could be perceived as being stronger?
it's simply evidence with an adjective added to it to make it sound more serious. It's a recognised scientific term you know . ;)
-
What exactly does compelling evidence mean?
Evidence is straightforward. It is material which supports the case that a particular state of affairs exists.
But compelling evidence? Does this suggest that the case is not strong but with a little effort or twist could be perceived as being stronger?
I think it is supposed to mean that the evidence does not prove the case but suggests that it is correct.
As a thought experiment, not suggesting that this was the actual case:
Suppose you have a group attending a meeting that was leaked to a reporter after the meeting. You decide to check the call logs on the phones of all the attendees.
Most hand over their phones one objects strongly but eventually hands theirs over.
On the phone of the objector you can see that they phoned the reporter right after the meeting.
On some of the other phones you see that the reporter has called the owner after the meeting, but after the call to them by the person that objected to phone checking.
Such a sequence of calls record cannot possibly prove the identity of the leaker, but can be regarded as compelling in as much as it would destroy confidence in the suspect.
-
Yes, I realise all this.
I was wondering whether the use of compelling was showing something of Theresa May's motivation.
-
hmm.. I don't know what you mean now...
-
Which surely means it cannot just be left there?
No, but it does mean your claim that "the letter covering his sacking doesn't say that he was actually the leak" is incorrect.
-
What exactly does compelling evidence mean?
Evidence is straightforward. It is material which supports the case that a particular state of affairs exists.
But compelling evidence? Does this suggest that the case is not strong but with a little effort or twist could be perceived as being stronger?
No, it means the case is strong.
-
No, it means the case is strong.
I think that that is what she wants us to think. I suspect that she may not, if fact, have had a strong case but she was determined to get rid of Gavin Williamson and so implied that there was strong evidence when all she had was circumstantial evidence.
But he now on the back benches and, as a former Chief Whip, could prove to be a formidable enemy.
-
I think that that is what she wants us to think. I suspect that she may not, if fact, have had a strong case but she was determined to get rid of Gavin Williamson and so implied that there was strong evidence when all she had was circumstantial evidence.
But he now on the back benches and, as a former Chief Whip, could prove to be a formidable enemy.
Have you got any compelling evidence for your version?
-
No, Only the circumstances ... ::)
-
No, Only the circumstances ... ::)
Just seems unlikely to me, she'd only recently promoted him from a whip to a senior position.
ETA: In fact, I expect that she acted on civil service advice both on Huawei and leak investigation.
-
But he wasn't "a whip", he was Chief Whip - responsible for party discipline and an attender of Cabinet meetings (if not an actual member).
-
Ah .. I see.
Littlefinger's demise was more enduring though.
-
It seems now that Scotland Yard have stated that no offence has been committed.