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

[7by7]

18 minutes ago, evadgib said:

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Regardless of the motives of the poster to whom you replied, he raises a good point - why has an unelected apparatchik got power to overrule the chancellor?

Chancellors don't do employment as such, That's down to the sir Humphries.

 

Ms Khan was a political advisor, not a civil servant.

 

Therefore her employment and termination of same is a matter for her political boss, in this case the Chancellor, not the Cabinet Secretary nor any other civil servant.

[Basil B]

Reading the article in the Daily Mail I would say she has a strong case for unfair dismissal.

On a salary of £53k to £70k it could be a big payout at unfortunately the taxpayers expense, Cummings and Boris can not even be disciplined for there actions.

 

Quote

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.

 Breach of the data protection act???

[joecoolfrog]

9 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 ????.

Thats the opposite of what I read , link please .

[joecoolfrog]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

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.

 

 

 

 

One needs to know the context to understand what this is really about. Cummings is furious because of the leaked documents that showed that he and the government were fully aware that ' project fear ' was in fact very real.

Given that they have used it as an excuse to ignore all the expert warnings , it pretty much shows who the biggest liars have been.

[joecoolfrog]

5 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

She should be gone.

Why ?

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, joecoolfrog said:

Thats the opposite of what I read , link please .

Try reading previous posts. I provided it.

[7by7]

13 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

1 hour ago, joecoolfrog said:

Thats the opposite of what I read , link please .

Try reading previous posts. I provided it.

 

You have not provided a single link which contains any evidence that Ms Khan leaked any information to or shared government secrets with anyone.

 

Let alone anything to justify your absurd, over the top accusation that she is a traitor!

 

Prove me wrong by providing one now; if you can!

Edited August 31, 2019 by 7by7
Addendum

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Try reading previous posts. I provided it.

No, you have not.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, joecoolfrog said:

One needs to know the context to understand what this is really about. Cummings is furious because of the leaked documents that showed that he and the government were fully aware that ' project fear ' was in fact very real.

Given that they have used it as an excuse to ignore all the expert warnings , it pretty much shows who the biggest liars have been.

 

All of which is true; but is it relevant to this topic?

 

There is absolutely no evidence to link Ms Khan to the leaking of any document.

[evadgib]

6 hours ago, candide said:

The most embarrassing information may well be that there is nothing to be leaked....

Details of Yellowhammer and/or dirt on Boris's 'domestic' could reasonably be expected to have been gleaned by the likes of Hammond & the Weasel more than a month ago. I'm guessing this sacking relates to something a little more recent...

Edited August 31, 2019 by evadgib

[Loiner]

 
There is absolutely no evidence to link Ms Khan to the leaking of any document.

Plenty of declarations of innocence or guilt in these posts, all based on something read in the media. In reality, nobody knows. Did she, didn’t she? Who cares.
The fact is that she was a Remainer in a position she shouldn’t have been. The govt is full of them - politicians, civil servants, lackeys and hangers on. They are the reason we are in the mess of not having left yet. Good riddance to her and now wheedle our the rest of them.

[Bluespunk]

18 minutes ago, Loiner said:

 

Plenty of declarations of innocence or guilt in these posts, all based on something read in the media. In reality, nobody knows. Did she, didn’t she? Who cares.
The fact is that she was a Remainer in a position she shouldn’t have been. The govt is full of them - politicians, civil servants, lackeys and hangers on. They are the reason we are in the mess of not having left yet. Good riddance to her and now wheedle our the rest of them.

 

According to reports that bother to mention her position on brexit, she is all in favour of leaving. 

 

No reports I've read mentioned she is remain. 

 

Where did you read she is against leaving?

Edited August 31, 2019 by Bluespunk

[evadgib]

14 minutes ago, Loiner said:

 

Plenty of declarations of innocence or guilt in these posts, all based on something read in the media. In reality, nobody knows. Did she, didn’t she? Who cares.
The fact is that she was a Remainer in a position she shouldn’t have been. The govt is full of them - politicians, civil servants, lackeys and hangers on. They are the reason we are in the mess of not having left yet. Good riddance to her and now wheedle our the rest of them.

 

Someone (49?) posted that she is a leaver on one of these threads yet a photo on another shows her walking 3 abreast talking to Hammond who is in the middle.

'Clear as mud' ????

Edited August 31, 2019 by evadgib

[7by7]

31 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Someone (49?) posted that she is a leaver on one of these threads yet a photo on another shows her walking 3 abreast talking to Hammond who is in the middle.

'Clear as mud' ????

As she used to work for Hammond when he was Chancellor before she worked for Javid it is not surprising that there are pictures of her walking and talking to him!

 

She has held a number of press related roles around Parliament and her boss before she worked for Hammond was Brexiteer Liam Fox, who supports Johnson's proroguing of Parliament.

 

So one of her last three political bosses was a Remainer and two were Brexiteers; what does that prove?

Edited August 31, 2019 by 7by7
Tidy up grammer

[Baerboxer]

14 hours 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.

 

And who the Fcku is Cummings to act like this.

 

Who elected him - no one.

 

If I was Javid, I'd be livid too. 

 

Boris it seems is easily led. A front 'smiler" (can't call him a pretty!) for a gang of power crazy far right loonies who couldn't give a stuff for democracy.

[Baerboxer]

45 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

As she used to work for Hammond when he was Chancellor before she worked for Javid it is not surprising that there are pictures of her walking and talking to him!

 

She has held a number of press related roles around Parliament and her boss before she worked for Hammond was Brexiteer Liam Fox, who supports Johnson's proroguing of Parliament.

 

So one of her last three political bosses was a Remainer and two were Brexiteers; what does that prove?

 

Indeed. But Cummings it seems has total power of Johnson. A nasty power hungry and dangerous little man. Paranoia is often a trait of such people.

 

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And who the Fcku is Cummings to act like this.

 

Who elected him - no one.

 

If I was Javid, I'd be livid too. 

 

Boris it seems is easily led. A front 'smiler" (can't call him a pretty!) for a gang of power crazy far right loonies who couldn't give a stuff for democracy.

Smart people have smart people working for them.

[7by7]

14 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

<snip>

So one of her last three political bosses was a Remainer and two were Brexiteers; what does that prove?

 

Indeed. But Cummings it seems has total power of Johnson. A nasty power hungry and dangerous little man. Paranoia is often a trait of such people.

 

Exactly, and the mere fact that Khan had spoken to former colleagues who had also worked for Hammond was enough to convict her in Cummings' mind; and the mind of others as ill informed posts here show.

 

Whitehall's code of conduct does allow the Prime Minister to withdraw consent from the appointment of a special adviser by a Ministers; as May did to Johnson when he was her Foreign Secretary. But it was May who told Johnson this, not one of her advisors.

 

If Johnson had evidence, or even suspicions, that Khan was passing delicate information to Hammond via former colleagues then he should have told Javid to do something about it. That Cummings took it upon himself to act in the way he did, and that Johnson has let him get away with it, shows who is really the boss of whom in that relationship.

 

It amazes me that Brexiteers who complain loudly about being ruled by unelected appointees in Brussels are happy to accept that happening in Downing Street!

Edited August 31, 2019 by 7by7
Addendum

[evadgib]

59 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

As she used to work for Hammond when he was Chancellor before she worked for Javid it is not surprising that there are pictures of her walking and talking to him!

 

She has held a number of press related roles around Parliament and her boss before she worked for Hammond was Brexiteer Liam Fox, who supports Johnson's proroguing of Parliament.

 

So one of her last three political bosses was a Remainer and two were Brexiteers; what does that prove?

That It was you & that my mugshot training remain as sharp as ever after all these years ????

(Glad to see you're on form 49!)

[7by7]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

That It was you & that my mugshot training remain as sharp as ever after all these years ????

(Glad to see you're on form 49!)

 

What was me?

 

On form? If you mean I continue to check things before posting them as facts, you're right.

 

You should try doing the same occasionally.

 

 

[nontabury]

16 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

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

If the cap fits.

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2019 by nontabury

[nontabury]

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

You have not provided a single link which contains any evidence that Ms Khan leaked any information to or shared government secrets with anyone.

 

Let alone anything to justify your absurd, over the top accusation that she is a traitor!

 

Prove me wrong by providing one now; if you can!

 

So if it is proven in the weeks to come, that she did in fact pass on government information, that could be helpful to the Bureaucrats in Brussels, who are intent on keeping the U.K shackled to the E.u. 

Would you then agree she is a traitor.

[Scott]

Post removed.  

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

So if it is proven in the weeks to come, that she did in fact pass on government information, that could be helpful to the Bureaucrats in Brussels, who are intent on keeping the U.K shackled to the E.u. 

Would you then agree she is a traitor.

Would that information passed on be government secrets?

[Rimmer]

A baiting post has been removed

[7by7]

13 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

So if it is proven in the weeks to come, that she did in fact pass on government information, that could be helpful to the Bureaucrats in Brussels, who are intent on keeping the U.K shackled to the E.u. 

Would you (7by7) then agree she is a traitor.

 

A question based upon five hypotheticals!

 

1) The premise that bureaucrats in Brussels are intent on keeping the UK 'shackled' to the EU.

 

2) The absurd notion that even if they are, they have the power to do so.

 

3) That the EU is declared by the UK government to be an enemy of the UK.

 

4) That not only does the media secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer have access to secret government information which would aid the EU in achieving their aims as an enemy of the UK, but she also passed that information to them; either directly or via a third party.

 

5) That passing such information to the EU bureaucrats fell under one of the definitions of high treason in UK law; the appropriate definition being from the 1351 Act (as amended): "adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere."

 

If all of those were true, then yes; she would be guilty of treason.

 

There is zero evidence to suggest that any of them are true.

 

But many Remainers here, including myself, have been accused by the more rabid Brexiteers here of being traitors on numerous occasions; merely because we hold a different view to them and challenge their, often false, assumptions.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by 7by7
Spelling

[Nigel Garvie]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

A question based upon five hypotheticals!

 

1) The premise that bureaucrats in Brussels are intent on keeping the UK 'shackled' to the EU.

 

2) The absurd notion that even if they are, they have the power to do so.

 

3) That the EU is declared by the UK government to be an enemy of the UK.

 

4) That not only does the media secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer have access to secret government information which would aid the EU in achieving their aims as an enemy of the UK, but she also passed that information to them; either directly or via a third party.

 

5) That passing such information to the EU bureaucrats fell under one of the definitions of high treason in UK law; the appropriate definition being from the 1351 Act (as amended): "adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere."

 

If all of those were true, then yes; she would be guilty of treason.

 

There is zero evidence to suggest that any of them are true.

 

But many Remainers here, including myself, have been accused by the more rabid Brexiteers here of being traitors on numerous occasions; merely because we hold a different view to them and challenge their, often false, assumptions.

 

 

Hard to argue with really. Factual to the point, and not suffering from any of the deluded fantasies in the post you were replying to. Traitors is a totally melodramatic word to use. 

 

Cummings was not elected, but it appears he has and unhealthy degree of control over the buffoon himself. Elected Politicians should be running the country not slimy snakelike advisors. How appropriate if he were to be dragged off to the Tower, with a vast crowd of decent citizens applauding and shouting "Take back control".

 

[DannyCarlton]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

But many Remainers here, including myself, have been accused by the more rabid Brexiteers here of being traitors on numerous occasions; merely because we hold a different view to them and challenge their, often false, assumptions.

Traitors, you got off lightly. Some of the things that they've called me for exactly the same reasons, you wouldn't say in front of your mother.

 

It's all good in the hood though, as I know full well that they all love me really.

[Nigel Garvie]

20 hours ago, vogie said:

Smart people have smart people working for them.

Smart yes, human highly questionable.

 

Dominic at his most unpleasant (I hope) , no prizes for working out what he really thinks of the large number of poor people among those who voted Brexit.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Nigel Garvie
spelling

[nontabury]

7 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Smart yes, human highly questionable.

 

Dominic at his most unpleasant (I hope) , no prizes for working out what he really thinks of the large number of poor people among those who voted Brexit.

 

I’ve heard this same talk from many remainers, regarding those who Democratically voted to leave. And that includes remoaners here on T.V.