XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: jenningsltd@fastmail.fm 
  
 On 14/07/2019 16:07, Ian Jackson wrote: 
 > In message , JNugent 
 >  writes 
 >> On 14/07/2019 08:02, Ian Jackson wrote: 
 >>> In message , JNugent 
 >>>  writes 
 >>>> On 13/07/2019 22:22, Ian Jackson wrote: 
 >>>>> In message , Norman Wells 
 >>>>>  writes 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Anyway, it was Darroch who decided his position was untenable, and 
 >>>>>> he's the person who should know.€€ The UK government wasn't 
 >>>>>> involved in€€ his decision 
 >>>>> €€Oh, I bet they were. I expect the phone line between London and 
 >>>>> Washington was red hot for several hours. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> And your evidence for that is...? 
 >>>> 
 >>>>>> , nor was it the government's to make. 
 >>>>> €€Of course the government could have sacked him. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> They could have done that. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> But didn't. 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> However, they and€€ Darroch probably decided on a course of action 
 >>>>> that is hoped will, as€€ quickly as possible, minimise the amount of 
 >>>>> egg on the UK's face, and at€€ the same time get us back into Trump's 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Evidence? 
 >>>> 
 >>> Why the 'anti'? Don't you think that there would have been a flurry 
 >>> of€€ discussion between the UK and the ambassador about the best way 
 >>> to proceed? 
 >> 
 >> No. 
 >> 
 >> There might have been a "flurry of discussion" between the former 
 >> ambassador and the more senior civil servants in the FCO. That's 
 >> certainly a possibility. 
 > 
 > I just don't get it. You disagree with me - then immediately go on to 
 > agree with me. 
  
 Your phrase "the UK" implies the government. 
  
 >> I can see that it might be thought just that there was a "flurry of 
 >> discussion" between the former ambassador and the Foreign Secretary 
 >> (though ministers do not make decisions on personnel), but if that had 
 >> happened, we'd have heard about it in current circumstances, with that 
 >> minister exposed to the media every day. And we didn't hear about it. 
 > 
 > Maybe the OSA is working as it should? 
  
 The Act would not prevent reporting the fact of a meeting. But has JH 
 had the time? His day is pretty much circumscribed at the moment. 
  
 >> The idea that "the government" as an entity discussed the matter with 
 >> the former ambassador is ludicrous. 
 >> 
 > I'm not sure why I can't refer to those in our government who are 
 > dealing with this matter can't be referred to as 'the government. 
  
 The government is a collection of elected and unelected politicians. You 
 can't refer to the civil service as "the government". 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)