Menu
Close

Everyday

lse:lloy

#1991

Not really Froglet… not for someone who’s already said you wanted to see him imprisoned.

As a reminder, even the Ecuadorian Government offered to assist the Swedish prosecution progress the case.
“The Ecuadorian Government reaffirms its offer of judicial cooperation to the Kingdom of Sweden, to reach a prompt solution to the case. In this sense Ecuador keeps its invitation to judicial officers visit the London Embassy so that Julian Assange can be interviewed or via videoconference. Both possibilities are explicitly referred in the current procedural legislation in Sweden and the European Union.”

It wasn’t taken up and the Swedes then dropped all charges.


#1992

#1994

#1995

#1996

Simply a breach of ministerial confidentiality Oili. The major problem, I suspect, was embarrassing Theresa May.

Cheers,

Frog


#1997

Fiat, a bit more than that (perhaps!). Whoever leaked details of the conversation should have known that ‘what happens in the NSC stays in the NSC’! Someone like that cannot be trusted with state secrets.


#1998

Yes exactly.

Note that the police office said:
“The leak did not cause damage to the public interest at a level at which it would be necessary to engage misconduct in a public office.”
… and that he was informed by conversations with the Cabinet Office.

It all hinges on the definition of “damaging”… if the Cabinet Office wanted to prosecute someone then they could have by calling it damaging… for one of their pet MPs they don’t do it… for somone they wanted to stick away… you bet it would have been classed as damaging.


#1999

To ‘stick’ someone away it would require the CPS to rule that a crime had been committed & that there was a realistic chance of securing a prosecution. So it’s irrelevant whether the cabinet office called the leak damaging or not (in that respect).


#2000

And who decides whether to make a charge?

Clearly PC Plod talked to the Cabinet Office … as the article that you posted said.
Then he made the decision not to take it any further.

This is the relevant bit from the Act:
"
(3)A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such but otherwise than as mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (3) above a disclosure is damaging if—

(a)it causes damage to the work of, or of any part of, the security and intelligence services; or
"

So the definition of “damage” is absolutely critical… and so who defines that? It is subjective and something that the Government will heavily influence.


#2001

Nope. In this country it’s the Police & the CPS who determine whether a crime has been committed.The government isn’t involved in the process (as far as I’m aware). Imagine if Politicians got involved in determining who had committed a crime (it would be like Russia…perhaps!! :wink:)

Think Javid & Begum…so that the former can look good in a leadership contest :face_with_raised_eyebrow:


#2002

I never said that the Government “determined” whether a crime had been committed.
I said that they informed whether the information leaked was damaging to the work or the security and intelligence services.
If it was, then it is a clear breach of the Act… if it wasn’t, then it isn’t.

Your own posted article said as much:

  • "The leak from a National Security Council meeting about Chinese firm Huawei “did not amount to a criminal offence”, the Metropolitan Police says. "
  • “Mr Basu said the decision was informed by conversations with the Cabinet Office about the nature of the matters discussed at the meeting. He also took legal advice.”

#2003

No it isn’t. The government can say that a leak was damaging but the police & CPS may take a different view. Even if the police/CPS did agree with the government and arrest the perpetrator it could still be thrown out by a judge or jury. So the government cannot simply say that a leak is damaging to ‘stick’ people away they don’t like (like in Russia :wink:).


#2004

Everyday…

Brexit costs money for nothing so Brexiters can get their kicks for free…

More money down the drain on Brexit. Let’s just hope that Grayling isn’t managing this one.

Cheers,

Frog in a tree


#2005

Everyday…

…UKIP demonstrates what a set of disgusting prats they are. One of their candidates, Carl Benjamin, made rape comments about Jess Phillips MP. The police have announced today that they will investigate him. They took their time didn’t they? No doubt our friend Fynne will deplore the investigation as yet another example of the state clamping down on free speech?

As if to prove what a set of prats they are, "UKIP’s official Twitter feed posted: “The year is 2019, jokes you’d hear down the pub are now worthy of police investigation.”

Frog in a tree


#2006

Everyday…

…we hear of the damage that Brexit will cause to the British economy. The May/Corbyn talks based around some form of customs union are presented as a model which will be a less damaging form of Brexit.

According to the analysis reported on by The Independent this kind of Brexit will make us all £800 worse off on average and shink GDP by 3%.

The customs union based plan in intended to support industries and jobs involved in trading goods. That is a good thing but most voters don’t understand the “invisibles” which are the profits made by the services sector which generates a very substantial amount of profit for the UK. A customs union would do little to protect these.

Frog in a tree


#2007

A man who could handle a penetrating political interview with panache.


#2008

Everyday…

…the pressure grows for a second referendum. This weekend Kier Starmer has made his strongest statement yet that a second referendum will be the price for agreeing a deal with May.

To add to the presure, Tom Watson has been weighing in with a strong speech also appealing to party traditionalists to support a second referendum. The pressure on Corbyn is surely growing and just as surely he must be able to do the parliamentary arithmetic and see that a second vote is the only way to get sufficient support in the Commons to get a deal approved.

Starmer is also threatening to pull the plug on the talks this week unless progress is made. Quite what would happen then is uncertain. Given that the parliamentary maths are as they are it would look like a general election could follow. That would potentially add more chaos to the mix and we might still end up with a parliament that is split.

Cheers,

Frog in a tree


#2009

I was surprised to find out today that Swedish detectives did interview Assange prior to dropping the extradition request. Apparently they interviewed him in the Ecuadorian embassy. I believe it was then decided that there was little chance of getting extradition whilst he was in the embassy and the case lapsed.

Todays news that Sweden are re-opening the case is rather strange IF it was “just a means to try and get him extradited to the US.” If that were the case surely Sweden would just allow the US extradition to proceed on its own.

I suspect Sweden extradition will get precedence over the US attempt.


#2010

If anyone is interested…

I emailed Corbyn’s office to make representations about Labour’s prevarication on Brexit and this morning I recieved this reply from one of his staff:

Many thanks for getting in touch about the UK exiting the European Union. After more than 2 years of continued failure, the Government’s Brexit strategy has become a national embarrassment. It is clear that, unless the Government makes substantial changes to their approach, then they will not be able to deliver a deal that will protect jobs, the economy and rights. Neither the ‘withdrawal agreement’ nor the ‘future framework’ that the Government agreed came anywhere close to the type of deal that would help us unite and move forward as a country. The Prime Minister’s deal, which has failed to pass through Parliament three times, would put jobs and the economy at risk and will make Britain poorer. Labour’s approach to Brexit has always been based on our values: internationalism, solidarity, respect for human rights, and achieving social and economic justice. Labour respects the result of the referendum, but we are determined to seek a close and cooperative relationship with the European Union that would include a new comprehensive customs union with a UK say, a strong single market deal, and guaranteed rights and protections. This would be the type of Brexit deal that can win support in Parliament and help bring together a divid_ed country. That is why Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, has been working with people across political parties to build a majority to block a ‘no deal’ Brexit and to find a way forward based on Labour’s alternative. This has now expanded into talks with the Government, where we are clear that unless the Prime Minister firmly moves away from her deal and towards Labour’s approach, which puts jobs and living standards ahead of damaging trade deals, then it is unlikely a way forward will be found. We will continue this process of talking to the Government to try and find a way to break the deadlock but we will also remain clear that if the Government does not listen, we will continue to oppose their bad deal, and a disastrous ‘no deal’. And if we can’t get changes along the lines of our alternative plan, or a general election, Labour backs the option of a public vote.

Frog in a tree


#2011

Apparently the government would then proceed with indicative votes in Parliament in an attempt to find something (anything) that can get a reliable majority.

Fiat, the response you got must make you wonder why you bothered!:face_with_raised_eyebrow: