XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: pamela.uklegal@gmail.com 
  
 On 19:03  15 Jul 2019, Keema's Nan  wrote: 
  
 > On 15 Jul 2019, Pamela wrote 
 > (in article ): 
 > 
 >> 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. 
 > 
 > That is the obvious inference to draw, but I€m not convinced. 
 > 
 > The truth will probably never come out, because the truth never does 
 > when shady characters are involved (i.e. where are the Skripals?) 
 > 
 > If they do find a patsy to take the blame, then it has all the hallmarks 
 > of a security services €sting€. 
 > 
 >> 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. 
 > 
 > If you wanted no press freedoms, is there an easier way than to dupe 
 > some ignorant Mail hack into getting an €exclusive€ which involved 
 > the OSA? 
 > 
 > Then, the string-puppet Basu is wheeled on to blurt out draconian 
 > clampdowns, followed by a backtracking to - not so draconian clampdowns 
 > - which everyone thinks is a blessed relief, but is actually worse than 
 > the draconian rules we have already. 
 > 
 > QED and everyone fell for it. 
  
 There are definitely a lot of ulterior motives at play.  There will be 
 some sort of show trial but the full truth will get hidden.  In part, Mail 
 journalists are still working to pre-Leveson morals where salacious 
 scandals are normal but they're just the fall guys for someone else's 
 scheming. 
  
 The outcome is Trump's predictable anger would be directed at Darroch and 
 worsen US-UK diplomatic relations.  The question is who wants that.  The 
 EU might benefit from that but it's hard to think they had a hand in it. 
  
 No one could be certain Boris would fail to support the ambassador and, 
 conversely, other MPs would support the ambassador wholeheartedly -- so 
 that doesn't seem worth untangling. 
  
 The timing is interesting too.  Why did the perps choose to publish at 
 this particular time, a few weeks before Boris becomes PM?  Why didn't 
 they wait until next week when Boris, whose incompetence at the foreign 
 affairs is well known, becomes PM? 
  
 Spooky spooks. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)