XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: pamela.uklegal@gmail.com 
  
 On 19:27  14 Jul 2019, Keema's Nan  wrote: 
  
 > On 14 Jul 2019, Pamela wrote (in article 
 > ): 
 > 
 >> On 13:14 14 Jul 2019, Norman Wells  wrote: 
 >> 
 >> > On 14/07/2019 11:54, Pamela wrote: 
 >> > > 
 >> > > TRIMMED 
 >> > > 
 >> > > 
 >> > > However poor Norman is lost in musings about "no one could prevent 
 >> > > it, so let the Americans walk over us at whatever cost to our 
 >> > > international standing". 
 >> > 
 >> > Maybe you'd share your wisdom with us as to how we could have 
 >> > prevented it then? In any case, it seems to me that we have to deal 
 >> > with the situation as it is now, not as it should have been, while of 
 >> > course taking all diplomatic steps we can to prevent a recurrence. 
 >> > 
 >> > > He probably thinks he's reducing the matter to its core principles 
 >> > > but in fact he's vastly oversimplifying to the point of absurdity. 
 >> > > That's Norman for you. 
 >> > 
 >> > At least I don't just pathetically harrumph. 
 >> 
 >> We're discussing what went wrong and what could have been done better. 
 >> 
 >> On the other hand, you're repeatedly saying "It's too late now" -- 
 >> which shows how wide of the mark you are. 
 > 
 > Don't worry; the security services will soon find photos of a couple of 
 > unshaven Russians, entering passport control at Gatwick, who are here 
 > on a sightseeing tour which includes standing in front of as many CCTV 
 > cameras as they can find. 
 > 
 > The Russians will be found to have met with Daily Mail journos the day 
 > before the emails were published, and obviously had been intercepting 
 > secret communications between the Washington Embassy and the Foreign 
 > Office. 
 > 
 > That will give Trump the excuse to unleash destruction the like of which 
 > the universe has never seen before, on Russia, Iran and North Korea. 
  
 I'm still wondering how the Daily Mail justifies publishing tittle-tattle 
 designed to infuriate unstable Presidents.  The material has no 
 journalistic value but its publication is clearly going to damage British 
 interests. 
  
 The editor of the Mail needs his collar felt, although I notice a 
 groundswell of liberal luvvies in the last few days all pronouncing about 
 the curtailment press freedom. 
  
 Leveson had concluded that 
  
    "There has been a recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, 
    almost irrespective of the harm the stories may cause". 
  
 also: 
  
     "a willingness to deploy covert surveillance, blagging and deception 
     in circumstances where it is extremely difficult to see any public 
     interest justification". 
  
 After Leveson I seem to recall most of the press refused to join a 
 government scheme which recognised a press ombudsman but instead preferred 
 to join some self-regulating schemes. 
  
 Publishing secret documents to no end other than sensationalism knowing 
 they would infuriate a touchy president is not the height of journalism. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)