XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: pamela.uklegal@gmail.com 
  
 On 18:12  15 Jul 2019, Keema's Nan  wrote: 
  
 > On 15 Jul 2019, Ian Jackson wrote (in article 
 > ): 
 > 
 >> In message, The Marquis Saint 
 >> Evremonde   writes 
 >> > Ian Jackson  posted 
 >> > > 
 >> > > Why do you think that the fact that a meeting took place would not 
 >> > > be covered by the OSA? The fact that people are not routinely taken 
 >> > > to 'The Tower' does not mean that what they leak or reveal is not 
 >> > > an OSA issue. Even to reveal that the latest delivery of paper 
 >> > > clips was not up to the usual standard could be an offence - 
 >> > 
 >> > No, it couldn't. That criticism used to be made of the 1911 Act, but 
 >> > the Act was rewritten in 1989 to make disclosures actionable only if 
 >> > they are 'damaging'. This means approximately that they endanger the 
 >> > interests of the UK or its citizens abroad, or the work of its 
 >> > intelligence services or armed forces. 
 >> 
 >> I did say 'COULD be an offence'. Even the apparently innocuous leak of 
 >> information might have unimagined and unforeseen consequences. As the 
 >> WW2 slogan said, "Tittle tattle lost the battle". 
 > 
 > Do you believe that it was an innocuous leak, or maybe the leaker(s) 
 > knew exactly what they were doing and the effects their leak would have? 
  
  
 At this stage, it has all the appearance of a highly targetted leak most 
 likely motivated by malice. 
  
 All this nonsense about journalistic freedom is guff.  If journalists don't 
 write journalistic stories but prefer to muck-rake, then they should not be 
 allowed to hide behind priciples designed for those with higher standards. 
  
 I seem to recall Darroch's leaked paper were not highly classified but 
 presumably that's because everyone already knew Trump was "diplomatically 
 clumsy and inept" and Darroch was merely confirming it. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)