At least there’ll be no more mole hunting.


Another stage in the slow-mo collapse of this government!




The Gavin Williamson sacking is leading to pleanty of comment in the news, unsurprisingly. Williamson is denying that he was the source of the leak. It is being said that in order to protect himself from prosecution he really has no alternative but to continue with his denials. I would not be surprised if, in fact, there were multiple leakers from whom the media stitched together the story. With this rabble of a cabinet that woukd not be a surprise.


Frog in a tree


I expect it’s more to do with a sad attempt to salvage his political career. He is trying to say that it’s a vendetta by Sir Mark Sedwill (civil servant who I believe did the ‘investigation’). If he had gone quietly then that would be the end of it (apart from a ruined career)…but now he risks a police investigation and possible prosecution. That’s quite a gamble…assuming he was actually involved in the leak.


No mention from you of those who published the leaked material from a whistleblower in this case then Froglet?
All the media and some politicians are gunning for the whistleblower… but none are going after the owners of the various media outlets who published the story.
Strange that eh?

One rule for Wikileaks and it’s owner… one rule for everyone else?
Or is it just a a case of doing what a bullying US Government tells it’s shirt-clinging ‘peers’ what to do?


Was the ‘material’ top secret?

Even if it was a newspaper (in this country) is ‘allowed’ to print stories that are in the national interest…although not state secrets.


Apparently, Gavin Williamson has sworn on his childrens’ lives that he is innocent. Nice! Perhaps he also ought to call for a police investigation as this could clear his name if he really is innocent?




The Huawei info was top secret apparently.
Who gets to decide what is in the ‘National Interest’ Oily? The Barclay Brothers? But not Assange?

"Theresa May has dismissed Gavin Williamson from his post as defence secretary over “compelling evidence” that he leaked top secret national communications infrastructure plans to The Daily Telegraph. (source BBC News)

The Telegraph published a story indicating that Huawei could be involved in the construction of “noncore” parts of the country’s 5G infrastructure – a highly confidential decision discussed at a National Security Council meeting. The story was published after Williamson met with Telegraph deputy political editor Steven Swinford.

So can we expect Sir David Rowat Barclay and Sir Frederick Hugh Barclay (owners of The Telegraph)… and at least those owners… to face charges of publishing secret information from a whistleblower?


…as former Chief Whip, I rather think that Williamson knows where a lot of dirt is buried. Perhaps that is why TM is keen to keep this out of the criminal process. One would think that secrecy in the NSC is so important that HMG would want to make an example of the cross-dresser !!! (Bloody autocomplete) I meant transgressor.




No it wasn’t (apparently)!

I heard that they had an 11 minute telephone conversation on the day of the NSC meeting (presumably after the meeting)…I suppose they could have ‘met’ on other occasions.

Have you got a link to the BBC News article because I would be interested to know which numptie at the BBC said the leak was ‘top secret’?


Speculation on WATO that there could have been multiple sources given normal journalistic practice of approaching various contacts to try to winkle out more info to piect the story together.


Frog in a tree


Multiple independent sources leaking information from the NSC…now that really would be scary. I suppose they could be from the same department but the leak would have been orchestrated by one person.


This is a government in full fledged competitive mode. Knives are being sharpened. But in the nature of things, relationships between journos and politicians can be a bit cosy and a little bit of off-the-record chat can go a long way when you can piece together what happened from a few different sources. As we know, this is probably the most ill-disciplined cabinet in modern years.




Fiat, you’re suggesting that he inadvertently leaked bits of information to the Telegraph journalist who added to that noodle of a story with tidbits from other sources. I ‘suppose’ it would explain why Williamson is still pleading innocence…but it doesn’t explain his stupidity and means he is the most likely source of the leak. His fingerprints are on the gun (he made an 11 minute telephone call to the Telegraph on that very day…apparently)…but he is claiming he didn’t pull the trigger.

TM has lost confidence in his trustworthiness, so he has to go. I suppose he could take her to an unfair dismissal tribunal :wink:


BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said sources close to the former defence secretary had told her Mr Williamson did meet the Daily Telegraph’s deputy political editor, Steven Swinford, but, she pointed out “that absolutely does not prove” he leaked the story to him.

It is vital for the operation of good government and for the UK’s national interest in some of the most sensitive and important areas that the members of the NSC - from our armed forces, our security and intelligence agencies, and the most senior level of government - are able to have frank and detailed discussions in full confidence that the advice and analysis provided is not discussed or divulged beyond that trusted environment.
source: PM’s letter to Williamson.

The information classification is largely irrelevant Oily… what matters is that whoever has leaked the information has probably fallen foul of the Official Secrets Act by disclosure of official information relating to security and intelligence… there’s a reason it was being discussed at the National Security Council after all.

But that is just the story you and the popular media are following… my point is different.
Seeing as the UK is now in the (long) process of extraditing Assange to the US… and the reason they want him is initially a trumped up hacking charge but which they will then change to charges of collusion and publishing secret information…
… then why aren’t the owners of the Telegraph (the Barclay Brothers) being arrested for publishing leaked secret information knowingly that came from the National Security Council.


I am very happy to send the Barclay Bros there too. As for Assange, he should face an investigation in Sweden for the allegations of rape. Once these are dealt with, then am happy for Assange to go to the US. Assuming that you don’t award him maximum points, I think 30 years would be about right.




JW, wrong. The classification of the leak is important. Leak of ‘top secret’ information would definitely be a criminal act and the police would have a duty to investigate (the government ‘probably’ couldn’t prevent an investigation in that case). The current leak was NOT of ‘top secret’ information (IMO) and therefore it was a sackable offence but ‘probably’ not criminal.

I have no idea why you are linking this to the Assange case but you’ve obviously got your own agenda.


First, they would first have to reopen the charges that were dropped some years ago.

And as you keep avoiding… why didn’t the UK authorities and the Swedish Detectives allow him to be interviewed in the UK by them regarding the old allegations…as they offered repeatedly?

You aren’t objective Froglet.


Then you are even more thick than I thought you were Oily.

The whole story is about:

  • a whistleblower
  • secret information that embarrasses a Government
  • publishing of that secret information

In one case… noone is mentioning the owners of the companies that published all the leaked information from the whistleblower.
In the other… the owner of the company that published the leaked information is going to face charges and almost certainly handed at least a long prison sentence.

The information being discussed at the NSC by it’s nature is all secret.
Unless it is published in a Government document then it wouldn’t necessarily be given a specific classification… as documents are given. Verbal exchanges are all meant to be secret at the NSC.
The Official Secrets Act covers all of this.
It doesn’t need to be regarding a Top Secret classified document for it to be highly sensitive material that breaches that Act… and the publishers of the information well know that.


Westlette, i am not privy to the decisions taken by the Swedish police. Is that objective enough?