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

[Jonnapat]

Probably not the last we shall hear from "dictator" Cummings. What a really embarrassing country we have turned into. I'm almost afraid to read the daily news bulletins nowadays. 

[Basil B]

Quote

The BBC's political correspondent, Iain Watson, said there appeared to be an informal investigation being conducted into the leak of the Operation Yellowhammer documents - commissioned under the previous regime at Downing Street - setting out the potential consequences of a no-deal Brexit.

A Downing Street source had previously pointed the finger for the leak at an unnamed former minister, prompting Mr Hammond to write to Mr Johnson and ask him to "apologise for the misleading briefing from No 10".

At the meeting with Mr Cummings, Ms Khan, who worked under Mr Hammond, handed over both her personal and work phones, and her phone logs were checked.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49532243

So not a police investigation, no charges of breaching the Official Secrets Act, just a kangaroo Court...

[Tom F]

Forgive me.  I'm just a Yank.  But, who is Dominic Cummings?   Is he an MP?   How does he have the authority, on his own, to immediately fire an aide to a Cabinet Minister, without even consulting that Minister?

 

[Thingamabob]

She should be gone.

[Laughing Gravy]

2 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?

Actually releasing sensitive documents is treasonous, so if she did this, then traitor is very appropriate.

 

Working in government you should sign the official secrets act. I know I did when I was a soldier.

[Laughing Gravy]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

It showed no such thing. 

For the challenged.

 

"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]

7 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Actually releasing sensitive documents is treasonous, so if she did this, then traitor is very appropriate.

 

Working in government you should sign the official secrets act. I know I did when I was a soldier.

Was the document which was allegedly leaked covered under the official secrets act? 

[Laughing Gravy]

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Was the document which was allegedly leaked covered under the official secrets act? 

Either you are being fesciscious or you know that answer. All documents should be under the official secrets act IMHO If it relates to government business.

We will see no doubt in the next day or so.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Laughing Gravy

[vogie]

2 minutes 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?

The security and destination of our country must come before individual egos of MPs, it is such an innocuous issue I wonder sometimes whether it is just another stick to hit leavers over the head with. People are being fired every day, in this case she was suspected of a misdemeanor, in most cases it probably wouldn't have mattered, but at government level I guess it does matter.

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

All documents should be under the official secrets act If it relates to government business.

Should? So this is your interpretation of the act? From what I can find, it appears only to apply to certain types of documents - so I have no idea whether this dossier was covered. However it also appears that newspapers and journalists who have printed documents which are covered by the act are also liable to prosecution. If you are correct, I presume we will see a raft of journalists in the dock in the near future...

[Bluespunk]

22 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

For the challenged.

 

"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. "

For the brexitocrats

 

There was absolutely no evidence she had leaked any information and her minister is, according to the OP, livid at the actions of cummings. 

[Laughing Gravy]

15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

For the brexitocrats

 

There was absolutely no evidence she had leaked any information and her minister is, according to the OP, livid at the actions of cummings. 

I was quoting was was said in the paper but obviously your crystal ball knows more.

Don't be surprised that in the next few days that it comes out that she was in fact passing documents, then you will look very silly.

[RuamRudy]

23 minutes ago, vogie said:

The security and destination of our country must come before individual egos of MPs, it is such an innocuous issue I wonder sometimes whether it is just another stick to hit leavers over the head with. People are being fired every day, in this case she was suspected of a misdemeanor, in most cases it probably wouldn't have mattered, but at government level I guess it does matter.

I agree with your premise, but the sacking, if justified, should come from the chancellor himself, the man for whom she works. 

[sammieuk1]

The unelected Westminster parallel state is working tirelessly to take out and silence all subversive remain by the look of it as the chasm approaches ???? 

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I was quoting was was said in the paper but obviously your crystal ball knows more.

Don't be surprised that in the next few days that it comes out that she was in fact passing documents, then you will look very silly.

And what did the article say about her leaking any information?

 

Hmm, let me think...

 

Ah, yes, I recall now. 

 

Absolutely nothing, because there is no evidence she did. 

 

Its not me using a crystal ball, making assumptions and calling people traitors. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Bluespunk

[GalaxyMan]

2 hours ago, Jonnapat said:

Probably not the last we shall hear from "dictator" Cummings. What a really embarrassing country we have turned into. I'm almost afraid to read the daily news bulletins nowadays. 

Welcome to the USSA under Trump. ????

[Pedrogaz]

Javid...probably the most useless man in the history of politics. I remember this fellow from when Tata announced the closing of the Port Talbot steel works. He was MIA on an important trip (holiday) at the tax payers expense which his son, exploring Australia.

[Pedrogaz]

The more I hear from Cummings and Johnson the more I like them. If there was an election, I would ditch my lifelong politics and vote Tory or Brexit party.

[Basil B]

I can not recall who said what, and more to the point any of those bits of information (the dirt on Boris) that press got from unknown sources during the leadership campaign, maybe this has more to do with that? 

[Nigel Garvie]

2 hours ago, Jonnapat said:

Probably not the last we shall hear from "dictator" Cummings. What a really embarrassing country we have turned into. I'm almost afraid to read the daily news bulletins nowadays. 

Cummings is a cunning and twisted reptilile, and that's the good bits. It is grim when we find unelected advisors acting like members of the Stazi, inspecting peoples private phones. Javid may be in trouble, this sometimes moves on to racial purity next. Why not a full blown purge of non BJ syncophants. Corbyn's politburo have been attempting to do the same with LP members not subservient enough to worship the Messiah.

How has our once fine country sunk so far into the gutter.

2 hours ago, Tom F said:

Forgive me.  I'm just a Yank.  But, who is Dominic Cummings?   Is he an MP?   How does he have the authority, on his own, to immediately fire an aide to a Cabinet Minister, without even consulting that Minister?

 

Welcome to the land of Bojo, he's been studying your supreme leader. However to answer your question directly, Dominic Cummings is both similar in nature, and the equivalent of, Trump's advisor Steven Miller, a man who Lucifer said he would prefer not to be seen with, even the devil has some standards. (Picture below)

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Forgive you, possibly. But interesting that you are joining threads on Brexit. I wonder have you been another poster previously here.

 I suspect I am not alone at being tired of you challenging anyone who is, or appears to be, not from the UK, regarding their nationality, their motives, or their right to post on the Brexit topic. From what I read of forum rules,  I believe this is is an open forum overall, individual topics do not belong to particular groups of people or nationalities. It is WHAT people say that matters, not WHO they are. If you wan't a job as a bouncer try Soho. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Nigel Garvie
omit

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Forgive you, possibly. But interesting that you are joining threads on Brexit. I wonder have you been another poster previously here.

Besides the audacitity of the poster, daring to post in a brexit thread while not being British, anything to say on the question he posed?

[Basil B]

2 hours ago, Tom F said:

Forgive me.  I'm just a Yank.  But, who is Dominic Cummings?   Is he an MP?   How does he have the authority, on his own, to immediately fire an aide to a Cabinet Minister, without even consulting that Minister?

 

Job tiles change but basically top aide to the PM...

 

Cummings was the Director of the "Vote Leave" campaign and...

Quote

In March 2019, the Commons Select Committee of Privileges recommended the House issue an admonishment for alleged contempt of Parliament after Cummings failed to appear before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into claims of false news during the referendum campaign. The resolution admonishing him was passed by resolution of the House of Commons on the 2nd April 2019.

  

[candide]

4 hours 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.

 

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

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, candide said:

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

I'm sure you don't believe that candide, at that level of government I'm sure the are many juicy snippets that Philip Hammond would like to be informed about, then he might be straight on the EU hotline to his friends in Brussels.

[candide]

18 minutes ago, vogie said:

I'm sure you don't believe that candide, at that level of government I'm sure the are many juicy snippets that Philip Hammond would like to be informed about, then he might be straight on the EU hotline to his friends in Brussels.

I admit I was being nasty, as often.????

However, I think there is some element of truth in it as we have not seen any articulate proposal yet and I doubt we'll see any later.

The secrets are more likely to be about some political manoeuvre against their opponents.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Tom F said:

Forgive me.  I'm just a Yank.  But, who is Dominic Cummings?   Is he an MP?   How does he have the authority, on his own, to immediately fire an aide to a Cabinet Minister, without even consulting that Minister?

 

 He is not an MP, he has not been elected by anyone.

 

He orchestrated the Leave.EU campaign, and his political puppets, including Johnson, repeated his subterfuge, such as the lie about £350 million a week becoming available for the NHS if we left the EU,  during that campaign.

 

It seems that in what passes for democracy in Brexit Britian he has the ultimate power and even now he is PM Johnson is still following his orders.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I was quoting was was said in the paper but obviously your crystal ball knows more.

Don't be surprised that in the next few days that it comes out that she was in fact passing documents, then you will look very silly.

Again, no. You were not, you were interpreting the article.

[evadgib]

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.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

<snip>

Working in government you should sign the official secrets act. I know I did when I was a soldier.

I too, like all current and former Crown servants, have signed the Official Secrets Act; but are a minister's political aides Crown servants?

 

Reading The Official Secrets Acts and Official Secrecy I'm not sure that they are.

 

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

<snip>

All documents should be under the official secrets act IMHO If it relates to government business.

 

With respect, it is not your opinion which matters here, it is the law.

 

Firstly, you have no evidence that Ms Khan 'leaked' any documents.

 

Secondly, although she did talk to someone in the period in question she had at first denied so doing (a deliberate lie or a simple error of memory?), there is no evidence that she discussed or revealed anything she shouldn't have in that conversation.

 

Thirdly, even if she had, was that information covered by the Act? Reading from the above link, it appears not.

Quote

Distinction between government personnel under the 1989 Act

For employees or former employees of the security and intelligence services, any unauthorised disclosure of a document or information relating to security and intelligence is an offence. However, a Crown Servant (e.g. civil servants, government ministers, members of the armed forces or police) is only guilty of an offence if they make an unlawful disclosure in one of the six categories which is deemed "damaging".

 

 Did she disclose any "document or information relating to security and intelligence?" 

 

No.

 

Did she disclose anything which is deemed damaging?

 

No.

Quote

Evidence was found that she had been in touch with former colleagues who had worked for Mr Hammond, but not that she had been involved in leaking any sensitive government information. (Source)

 

Damaging to Cummings, maybe. Damaging to the country? No. 

 

Edited August 31, 2019 by 7by7
Typo

[7by7]

2 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

Javid...probably the most useless man in the history of politics. I remember this fellow from when Tata announced the closing of the Port Talbot steel works. He was MIA on an important trip (holiday) at the tax payers expense which his son, exploring Australia.

 Unlike Johnson who when he was London Mayor returned immediately from his holiday to deal with the major crisis of the Tottenham riots.

 

Oh, hang on; he didn't!