XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: Evremonde@bastille.com 
  
 Ian Jackson  posted 
 > 
 >I suppose it's always a personal decision as to whether what you do 
 >breaks the law. In many cases, it's bleedin' obvious (so you don't need 
 >to think about it for long), but in others it's not. You could 
 >certainly argue that leaking something about what a malign government 
 >is doing might be 'in the public interest' - 
  
 That argument wouldn't do you any good, though. There is no public 
 interest defence in OSA 1989, and any case law relating to the previous 
 Act is now invalidated by the repeal of the 1911 Act. Notably, of 
 course, Ponting. 
  
 >especially if it gets them to change their ways, or even leads to a 
 >change of administration. 
 > 
 >But while the publication of confidential diplomatic memos might be 
 >'interesting to the public', on this occasion whether they are 'in the 
 >public interest' is highly questionable - especially having regard to 
 >the potentially serious damage to the UK. Who would deny that the 
 >leaking of the present frank criticism of Trump has been extremely 
 >damaging? 
  
 I wouldn't, for one. It *has* been damaging to UK interests, and it was 
 clearly foreseeable as such. IMO there has been a very clear breach of 
 the OSA, both by the original leaker and by the Mail. If there is no 
 prosecution I think we can safely conclude that the leak was authorised 
 by government in a deliberate attempt to achieve some political goal or 
 another. What, I do not yet know. 
  
 >This morning, I noted that LBC's Nick Ferrari was in his petulant 
 >pompous prat mode - condemning the police (in the form of Neil Basu, 
 >the head of the Metropolitan Police's specialist operations) for having 
 >the audacity to warn the media that they should not be publishing 
 >OSA-sensitive information - and inviting his callers to do the same 
 >(which most did). "It's not the job of the police to tell the 
 >newspapers what they can and can't publish." Apparently, Basu was 
 >forced to partially back down (which I think he never should have 
 >been). If the police cannot point out that a certain course of action 
 >might be breaking the law, who can? 
  
 Moreover, when you look at what Jeremy Hunt actually said when he was 
 asked about this, he was careful to add the rider "provided that the 
 Official Secrets Act has not been broken" or words to that effect. 
 Johnson was less clear in the clip I saw, but I would expect him to have 
 hedged his bets too. As you say, there obviously are certain secrets 
 that the press must not be permitted to publish. 
  
 -- 
 Evremonde 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)