UK finance minister 'livid' at PM Johnson over firing of aide - media

[rooster59]

UK finance minister 'livid' at PM Johnson over firing of aide - media

 

Britain's new Chancellor Sajid Javid speaks to the media as he arrives at the treasury in London, Britain, July 24, 2019. Matt Dunham/Pool via REUTERS

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British finance minister Sajid Javid has challenged Prime Minister Boris Johnson over the dismissal of an aide by Johnson's top advisor which has caused tension between the government's two most powerful men, media said.

 

The Financial Times said on Friday that Javid was "livid" about the firing on Thursday of his press aide by Dominic Cummings, who was looking into whether government officials had helped opponents of Johnson's Brexit plans.

 

"He's absolutely furious," the newspaper quoted a colleague of Javid's as saying. "He doesn’t consider the matter closed."

 

Javid had not threatened to resign but his relationship with Johnson had been compromised, the FT said.

 

Other newspapers also reported tensions between Javid and Johnson over the dismissal and other incidents which came as Britain's government is preparing for Brexit on Oct. 31 and is trying to move ahead with a new domestic agenda too.

 

Javid is due to announce a one-year government spending plan on Wednesday with a focus on more funding for education, health and the police. Johnson announced details of the increase in schools spending on Friday.

 

Earlier this week, a speech that Javid planned to give to outline his economic programme was cancelled at short notice.

 

An official in Johnson's office said he could not comment about any meeting between the two men on Friday but said they were working closely on a series of policies.

 

"I have not seen a hint of any difference between them on those issues," the official said.

 

No one was immediately available for comment at the finance ministry.

 

(Writing by William Schomberg; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-31

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Laughing Gravy]

He should be grateful. Reported in other papers that she (the aide) had her phone looked at and clearly showed she was a traitor. Sharing government secrets should get her thrown in the tower ????.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Laughing Gravy

[pegman]

 Machiavellia strikes.

[OneMoreFarang]

23 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

He should be grateful. Reported in other papers that she (the aide) had her phone looked at and clearly showed she was a traitor. Sharing government secrets should get her thrown in the tower ????.

Can you provide more details?

I read she was accused and she showed her phones but there was no evidence against her.

It seems her only "crime" was to still socially see people who Cummings does not like.

[theoldgit]

21 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Reported in other papers that she (the aide) had her phone looked at and clearly showed she was a traitor. Sharing government secrets should get her thrown in the tower ????.

I can see plenty of reports that she was told to hand over her phone, but not one where it said that anything incriminating was found, could you point me in the right direction please?

 

Ms Khan is a passionate leaver, I find it hard to believe that she would do anything to scupper BJ's "my way or no way" approach.

 

Cummings is a dangerous bully and a power freak.

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Can you provide more details?

I read she was accused and she showed her phones but there was no evidence against her.

It seems her only "crime" was to still socially see people who Cummings does not like.

As I said just what I read. I am not making any judgement if it is correct or not.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7412531/RICHARD-KAY-Fear-loathing-No10-Dominic-Cummings-strips-Tory-aide-Westminster-pass.html

 

According to insiders, the exchanges between Mr Cummings and Miss Khan inside his office went like this.

He ran through a list of names and demanded to know if she had spoken to any of them in the past week. She said she had not.

On the list were journalists as well as so-called allies of Mr Hammond.

M R CUMMINGS put it to Miss Khan that she was suspected of leaking. She denied it. He then asked to see her work-issued mobile phone and scrolled through her calls and messages.

It is understood there was no obvious sign of contacts with the people he had asked about.

He then asked her to hand over her private mobile phone. According to our information, it showed she had, in the previous 48 hours, spoken to an individual with whom she had denied being in contact.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

He should be grateful. Reported in other papers that she (the aide) had her phone looked at and clearly showed she was a traitor. Sharing government secrets should get her thrown in the tower ????.

The word 'traitor' is being bandied about with more and more frequency of late. Is this insertion also tongue in cheek?

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

He should be grateful. Reported in other papers that she (the aide) had her phone looked at and clearly showed she was a traitor. Sharing government secrets should get her thrown in the tower ????.

It showed no such thing. 

[Bluespunk]

31 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

As I said just what I read. I am not making any judgement if it is correct or not.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7412531/RICHARD-KAY-Fear-loathing-No10-Dominic-Cummings-strips-Tory-aide-Westminster-pass.html

 

According to insiders, the exchanges between Mr Cummings and Miss Khan inside his office went like this.

He ran through a list of names and demanded to know if she had spoken to any of them in the past week. She said she had not.

On the list were journalists as well as so-called allies of Mr Hammond.

M R CUMMINGS put it to Miss Khan that she was suspected of leaking. She denied it. He then asked to see her work-issued mobile phone and scrolled through her calls and messages.

It is understood there was no obvious sign of contacts with the people he had asked about.

He then asked her to hand over her private mobile phone. According to our information, it showed she had, in the previous 48 hours, spoken to an individual with whom she had denied being in contact.

That does not mean she leaked any information and certainly does not justify hyperbolic statements about being a traitor. 

 

Does it mean she can be always relied upon upon to be honest, no, it doesn’t.

 

However neither can her no deal brexiteer bosses and certainly not cummings. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Bluespunk

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That does not mean she leaked any information and certainly does not justify hyperbolic statements about being a traitor. 

It appears more and more that a traitor is now simply someone with whom you disagree - the process of 'othering'.

[cmsally]

An off topic post has been removed.

[evadgib]

2 hours ago, theoldgit said:

I can see plenty of reports that she was told to hand over her phone, but not one where it said that anything incriminating was found, could you point me in the right direction please?

 

Ms Khan is a passionate leaver, I find it hard to believe that she would do anything to scupper BJ's "my way or no way" approach.

 

Cummings is a dangerous bully and a power freak.

This morning's (Sky) press review suggested her pers phone was demanded/inspected & that deleted whattsapp messages linking her to Hammond & Dom-the-Weazel were found or suspected. If true this raises a number of questions inc;

 

- How was a private device allowed that close to the PM & No 10?

 

- Where does Cummins stand on the Privacy front re his actions in doing so?

 

Lets hope this is another of those 'imaginative stories for a no news day' although it's no worse that when Campbell was doing same under B-liar. 

 

If I were her i'd have this lot on speed dial:

 

Investigatory Powers Tribunal

Information Commissioners office

Edited August 31, 2019 by evadgib

[vogie]

18 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That does not mean she leaked any information and certainly does not justify hyperbolic statements about being a traitor. 

 

Does it mean she can be always relied upon upon to be honest, no, it doesn’t.

 

However neither can her no deal brexiteer bosses and certainly not cummings. 

Does it mean she can be always relied upon upon to be honest, no, it doesn’t.

 

I really think you have hit the nail on the head there. We are not talking about stealing a pint of milk from somebodies doorstep, we are talking about the security and the future of our country.

We are approaching the final hurdle of leaving the EU, if there is any risk or suspicions about someone surely it is better to err on the safe side and get rid of that person.

 

[stevenl]

53 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

As I said just what I read. I am not making any judgement if it is correct or not.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7412531/RICHARD-KAY-Fear-loathing-No10-Dominic-Cummings-strips-Tory-aide-Westminster-pass.html

 

According to insiders, the exchanges between Mr Cummings and Miss Khan inside his office went like this.

He ran through a list of names and demanded to know if she had spoken to any of them in the past week. She said she had not.

On the list were journalists as well as so-called allies of Mr Hammond.

M R CUMMINGS put it to Miss Khan that she was suspected of leaking. She denied it. He then asked to see her work-issued mobile phone and scrolled through her calls and messages.

It is understood there was no obvious sign of contacts with the people he had asked about.

He then asked her to hand over her private mobile phone. According to our information, it showed she had, in the previous 48 hours, spoken to an individual with whom she had denied being in contact.

No, you interpreted what you read. And nowhere did you read she leaked information, let alone revealed government secrets. That was your conclusion, not corroborated by your article.

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

Does it mean she can be always relied upon upon to be honest, no, it doesn’t.

 

I really think you have hit the nail on the head there. We are not talking about stealing a pint of milk from somebodies doorstep, we are talking about the security and the future of our country.

We are approaching the final hurdle of leaving the EU, if there is any risk or suspicions about someone surely it is better to err on the safe side and get rid of that person.

 

No, we are talking about someone being sacked on assumptions and not evidence she had leaked anything. 

 

We are talking about someone being pilloried as a traitor by posters who have no such evidence. 

 

We are talking about the influence of cummings in this no deal govt. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Bluespunk
Grammar

[Jip99]

1 minute ago, Victornoir said:

Always the same with the extremes, they argue with other, then they hun them, and then they argue with each other.
At last, they are hunted in turn.

 

 

Could you try that again, in English please.

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, we are talking about someone being sacked on assumptions and not evidence she had leaked anything. 

 

We are talking about someone being pilloried as a traitor by posters who have no such evidence. 

 

We are talking about the influence of cummings in this no deal govt. 

No we are talking about someone losing trust and to be on the safe side she has been relieved of her duties. She may be innocent, but you have said yourself, she may not, it's just not worth the gamble. Collateral damage.

Edited August 31, 2019 by vogie

[fredob43]

There's more to this than meets the eye. In the topic I read she was taken outside by police and her government pass has also been taken.

They don't do that unless someone had done something that wasn't correct.

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, vogie said:

No we are talking about someone losing trust and to be on the safe side she has been relieved of her duties. She may be innocent, but you have said yourself, she may not, it's just not worth the gamble. Collateral damage.

I said she might not be honest, but that is how I feel about her entire no deal brexit bosses (ex) as well. There is absolutely no evidence she leaked any secrets or is a “traitor”.

 

I have at no time said she is not innocent of the accusations cummings made.

 

As far as I am concerned, without clear evidence to the contrary, she is innocent in this case. And, as her direct boss is apparently livid, it would appear I am not alone in this. 

 

Accusing and dismissing people from their jobs based on assumptions, is that what we can all expect under brexitocracy?

Edited August 31, 2019 by Bluespunk

[ratcatcher]

Sajid Javid Livid.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

I said she might not be honest, but that is how I feel about her entire no deal brexit bosses (ex) as well. There is absolutely no evidence she leaked any secrets or is a “traitor”.

 

I have at no time said she is not innocent of the accusations cummings made.

 

As far as I am concerned, without clear evidence to the contrary, she is innocent in this case. 

 

Accusing and dismissing people from their jobs based on assumptions, is that what we can all expect under brexitocracy?

We could debate about this till the cows come home, I appreciate you will never agree with anything I say. But I can only repeat that an operation of the Brexit magnitude doesn't need someone working on it that may not have trust of her fellow colleagues, we all know how dirty politics can become at that level. Better safe than sorry.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

We could debate about this till the cows come home, I appreciate you will never agree with anything I say. But I can only repeat that an operation of the Brexit magnitude doesn't need someone working on it that may not have trust of her fellow colleagues, we all know how dirty politics can become at that level. Better safe than sorry.

She has the trust of the minister she worked for. 

 

There is absolutely no evidence she leaked any information. 

 

Better basing decisions on evidence and nothing else. 

[Forethat]

40 minutes ago, evadgib said:

- How was a private device allowed that close to the PM & No 10?

That is a really good question.

I won't go into details regarding the security measures on the location in question, but I can verify that pretty much everything has been done to prevent information from leaking out of the building unaudited. But private devices are still allowed. One of the few options available if you want to steal information and share it externally is to use a camera, and mobile phones have REALLY good cameras nowadays....

 

So YES, that is a REALLY good question.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

She has the trust of the minister she worked for. 

 

There is absolutely no evidence she leaked any information. 

 

Better basing decisions on evidence and nothing else. 

You are not reading what I wrote, I never said she leaked any information, maybe only herself knows this this, we were not there. If in doubt get her out. Now I shall prerogue myself from this conversation as it is going nowhere.

[Basil B]

What is all the fuss about, the bloody lot are likely to lose there jobs in the next few weeks...

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, vogie said:

You are not reading what I wrote, I never said she leaked any information, maybe only herself knows this this, we were not there. If in doubt get her out. Now I shall prerogue myself from this conversation as it is going nowhere.

You are not reading what I wrote.

 

She has been sacked on the basis of nothing but assumptions. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Bluespunk

[Basil B]

29 minutes ago, fredob43 said:

There's more to this than meets the eye. In the topic I read she was taken outside by police and her government pass has also been taken.

They don't do that unless someone had done something that wasn't correct.

They don't do that unless someone is suspected of doing something that wasn't correct.

[JonnyF]

Sounds like it was a trust issue. Whether you have 100% proof or not, if you cant trust them then they have to go.

 

It appears her lie about not contacting someone who she had in fact contacted was enough to lose that trust. Harsh? Maybe, maybe not but politics at that level is a brutal business and she would have known that when she got into it.

 

 

 

 

[GalaxyMan]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Does it mean she can be always relied upon upon to be honest, no, it doesn’t.

I thought that dishonesty was the prime prerequisite to being in politics...????

[theoldgit]

5 hours ago, evadgib said:

- How was a private device allowed that close to the PM & No 10?

I've certainly had a private device as well as an official one when in the presence of the PM and other Secretaries of State including the Home Sec, and never have I been asked to hand either in.

 

Whilst I've never been in No 10, per se, I've been in COBRA meetings which are held in the Cabinet Office which is the back entrance to No 10, never been searched or asked to hand in a personal mobile, not sure that a security guard would know the difference between a private and an official phone, they're not marked as such.