XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: jenningsltd@fastmail.fm 
  
 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 
 >>> good books. 
 >> 
 >> 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 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. 
  
 The idea that "the government" as an entity discussed the matter with 
 the former ambassador is ludicrous. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)