Who was the Leaker at the National Security Council ?

Whoever it was they are facing serious charges. Presumably all present have signed the Official Secrets Act and this leak would expose the person responsible to prosecution under that act.

Did they forget to turn off their Alexa and American smartphones?

Such is the state of politics we naturally assume it was from a politician maybe with a leadership bid in mind but could easily have been a Civil Servant or Military with their own agenda

Going back to the Brexit Debate. We want Tarde Deals from both these Monsters, USA and China! We could be the middle of a spit roast, what price Sovereignty!

whoever it was you can bet they won't be named. A junior or lackey will carry the can

Do we know who were present? Have they been named yet? May I suggest a lie detector test for those present including PM May (if she was there). And, make the person responsible pay for the costs of the enquiry too, then into the cell for at least 12 months without pay.

Who gives a donald?

1) the decision would have to be announced anyway so it is not like anyone revealed a state secret

2) the leaker was probably after boosting his/her leadership credentials

3) ditto for those who called for an enquiry into the leak

If I had to bet, I'd say Javid's denial looked the most wishy-washy but of course you cannot be sure exactly what question he was asked.

The real scandal is not that we are buying Chinese kit but that we can't buy homegrown network equipment because the British electronics firms were allowed to be sold off or go bust. Where are Plessey and Marconi and the other firms we grew up with? And you can ask the same question for many other industries.

My bet would be that none of the main names are guilty. I reckon it was probably a civil servant or military intelligence.

How was this leaked? Through a journalist?

IMO Every time a confidential document is given out to people each one should be identifiable individually so leaks can be tracked. Subtle watermarks, codes in PDF, or replace the odd word here or there, different in every copy. Then you'll know who leaks them.

Great idea but I doubt either the journalist or the leaker is stupid enough to leak a document as it is. If it contains the text 'Proudly leaked by Mr. XXX' then i'll only leak the content, not the report as it is will I?

If the odd word was changed and text was released it would indicate who would do it.
Dictionaries/Encyclopedias etc have been known to deliberately put errors or stupid things in so if they are plagiarised they can see it's been taken from them.
If each copy had words changed in an allocated manner but still read ok, you could see who leaked it.
If each copy had words changed in an per person manner but still read ok, you could see who leaked it.
If each copy had words changed in an allocated manner but still read fine, you could see who leaked it.
If each copy had words changed in an allocated manner but still read ok, you could see which individual leaked it.
If each copy had some words changed in an allocated manner but still read ok, you could see who leaked it.
If each copy had some words alterered in an allocated manner but still read ok, you could see who leaked it.
If each copy had some words alterered in an allocated manner but still read ok, one could see who leaked it.
If each copy had some words alterered in an allocated manner but still read ok, you could observe who leaked it.

If the culprit is found I think a custodial sentence is in order

And if they track them down by my idea, you could call that evidence "a custodial sentence"

Could always be the govt talking of  leak for an ulterior motive.Smear a candidate by innuendo and/or have an excuse to sack a competitor that doesn't suit. The level of deceit at the top table may be infinite.

Combine the leaks with potatoes for a lovely winter warming soup

Plumbed new depths with that pun

they found the mole?

Absoultely caned him on Sky Press preview, McGuire said he's the sort of person who would have been out of his depth in a puddle


He has however Sworn on the lives of his children that it wasn't him, doubt anyone would ever do that if they really were the culprit, seems to me they just wanted rid for whatever reason and this is the excuse.

The man has no morals or scruples. He would swear on anything to save his neck.
Imprisonment for Treason to follow.
In days gone by, his head would have been on a spike by the Tower

That's tories for ya a bunch of Alan b'stards..

The Police should be investigating a National Security leak. Not sure if they could really find out what happened but this matter should not be treated lightly. It is not up to the Government to ask the Police to investigate the leak.

Once we've got Huawei 5g installed there will no longer be any need to leak anything and no need for anyone to sign the official secrets act (because we won't have any secrets)

He has however Sworn on the lives of his children that it wasn't him


but did he swear on the bible?

Pretty sue any investigation would have to be MI5 or MI6 but my doubts are the obvious prejudice of Mark Sedwell and I wonder what the real agenda is here.

*sure

How about prosecuting the media/journalist concerned in receipt of and in cahoot of this leak too? I believe anything from the National Security Council shall and can never to made public, period. This way recipient and giver (leaker) given the same penalty.

So the Chinese are just getting the nuclear power station gig ?

May 2, 2019 -- 11:32PM, impossible123 wrote:

How about prosecuting the media/journalist concerned in receipt of and in cahoot of this leak too? I believe anything from the National Security Council shall and can never to made public, period. This way recipient and giver (leaker) given the same penalty.

This goes against the freedom of press. How can you prosecute 'independent media' from publishing news brought to them by a politician? Because it is too sensitive? Tomorrow you are going to complain about the politicians protecting themselves by not allowing the media to report their actions.

In many countries, the intelligence agencies would just pick up the journalist that prints such news, hold him for half an hour, find out who leaked it, and let him go. I doubt this happened in this case, but by the time all the politicians started demanding an investigation, the intelligence agencies should already have started or possibly knew who it was. The important question is not just 'who leaked it' but how long has he been doing it, what else has he told, who else has he told etc etc. Counter intelligence agencies get onto things like these immediately. And you can NEVER be told the truth. There could have been a mole in the military ranks, do you think you'd be told that? The best way past this is to feed the public something that gets rid of the issue, like sacking a politician. IF there is indeed a mole in the military they could be feeding him wrong info, or they could be monitoring his movements so they can find more contacts. It is never in any party's favor to 'catch' the perpetrator and on top of that, announce it publicly.

How about prosecuting the media/journalist concerned in receipt of and in cahoot of this leak too? I believe anything from the National Security Council shall and can never to made public, period. This way recipient and giver (leaker) given the same penalty.


Oh dear oh dear oh dear

Maybe someone should live in Russia, Turkey or Saudi!

just a silly post detraveller.

National state secrets are national state secrets, anyone revealing them, no matter how important, should face the consequences.

Freedom of the press over years has seen them hack into dead people's phones and report the info, they are not above the law and shouldn't be treated as they are just so they can sell a few more of their tatty papers.

A silly post for suggesting that the journalist should not be punished for the top brass of the country leaking out a report?

I can live with the journalist being punished for this. But the thing is, you are then letting the politicians decide what a national secret is. Tomorrow you are going to be complaining about how they prosecute journalists in the name of national interest.

Also, as I mentioned, leaks are what counterintelligence feeds on. If you are going to start prosecuting journalists for the leaks, you are going to have to announce the presence of every mole after a leak. Do you think that is feasible? Do you even understand the consequences of that? You are basically announcing to the world 'Hey look, we caught your man, now you need to alert the others working in the country and send a replacement for this one'. This factor I would say is much bigger than freedom of press.

Every single thing discussed in the national security council is a secret ffs.

And im not denying that.

Let's say this was a general leaking the report. Do you realize how much information you will have to make public to prosecute the journalist?

You can't give license to journalist to print any info they want, they have media blackouts when their darling royals are in Iraq and Afghanastan, so they should be doing here even though this is not the most important leak ever but it's the priciple, and printing it doesn't set a precendent for them.

Good that you pointed that out. They have blackouts in Iraq and Afg. Just like they have the official secrets act in the NSC. You need to stop the leak from happening in the first place.

Once a leak happens, it becomes a liability for your intelligence and an asset for your counterintelligence. And both can't work if they have to publicly present the information to courts every week to prosecute the stupid guy that printed the leak.

they have media blackouts when their darling royals are in Iraq and Afghanastan
This is analogous to media not being present in an NSC meeting. Which is the case I am assuming.

Let's stick to the meetings/contents of the National Security Council ie matters relating to state security, and not pertaining to criminal/civil liberty matters. Sometimes, we as citizens, need to entrust senior members of our government to carry out their duties to the best of the abilities (legally) for our interest and benefit eg allowing appointed teachers in schools to teach our siblings (and not interfere) until required to, if necessary.

Only a select few and not every member of the government are privy to the meeting thus why should the general public? We can always get rid of any of them in the next election.

Any prosecution could be held behind closed doors attended by the best QC's and associated individuals; the public need not be involved, I firmly believe.

Any info that is talked about/shared withing the NSC should always remain private, which means nobody in the media should be allowed to print it even if given info, this 'freedom of the press' line, what exactly is that suppose to mean, they have freedom to do or say anything they want? of course not, it's simple stuff.

I am personally not a champion of freedom of press(I used that in my first post because the freedom of press is the first hurdle you will have to cross when trying a journalist). I am all for prosecuting someone who clearly knew the leak was coming from the highest authorities and will have consequences. But you are setting a very wrong precedent by doing that imo.

We can always get rid of any of them in the next election
You are assuming here that the leak was from a politician. The meeting is also attended by military and intelligence officials. If the leak came from them, they will be the least interested in prosecuting the journalist because they will have a bigger problem at hand. You cannot just get rid of someone in the military, especially when the leak clearly comes from the top brass of the military.

May 3, 2019 -- 7:50PM, scandanavian_haven wrote:

Any info that is talked about/shared withing the NSC should always remain private, which means nobody in the media should be allowed to print it even if given info, this 'freedom of the press' line, what exactly is that suppose to mean, they have freedom to do or say anything they want? of course not, it's simple stuff.

Fully agree. But you need to make this into a law before you start prosecuting. Only then can you try a journalist, knowing you are not obliged to give any more info to the public.

Criminal charges should be brought against anyone who relays confidential info from the NSC, who gets it first or second of third hand is irrelevant.

Yes but that is not the law is it?

no at present but the Telegraph owner should hand him and the editor their p45's.

Just out of interest, do you guys believe the axed minister was behind the leak?

he,s either guilty or the journo at the telegraph who got the story is quite happy for Williamson to be sacked for something he didn't do or let someone who cant be trusted with the governments secrets remain free to attend security council and free to spill more secrets and worse than that the guilty person is now open to blackmail from the torygraph about leaking more secrets or they,ll out him/her, but no one certainly the torygraph seems bothered, surely the torygraph should come clean one way or another

There is a smell of dirty tricks here,I suspect the controller of all this is senior civil servant Mark Sedwill. A dangerous man by all accounts,when crossed. Seems to have more allegiance to EU than UK at times,isolates anyone supporting Brexit and gets rid of Williamson who has shifted from Remain to Brexit ? A mandarin of a style familiar to France instead of Britain,looks to have control of Theresa May. We can vote out politicians but how do we get rid of the top civil servant if he goes rogue ?

The public info is: The content leaked was the reason for the meeting; he spoke at length on the fone to a journo soon after the meeting; he's the most probable of every one who were at the meeting; he's form on leaking info.

I think his political wilderness is the overwhelming reason for him to seek legal advice; ask his journo friend to divulge the contents of their fone conversation; secure a printout of his conversation with the journo from his mobile company to validate his denial otherwise, in all probability PM May was correct to sack him.