4 ms·

With his almost glorious ability to insert foot in mouth, I would put money on self-incrimination.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
It's also possible he didn't do it. He hasn't exactly impressed anyone - except himself - during his brief but very exciting tenure, and it's possible May was looking for an excuse to get rid of him while also pointing the finger at a convenient scapegoat. We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't.
- Veen 8y ago
  We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't. It's amazing it got this far. Leak inquiries almost never discover a culprit (by design) and it's unheard of for a minister to actually get sacked for leaking.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    It's more amazing that Williamson was ever Defence Minister in the first place. Latest: "Theresa May considers the matter closed." So there we are. No police investigation into a rather serious matter of national security. Meanwhile Williamson himself is absolutely insistent he's innocent and that the internal investigation was ineffective - which means that if he is innocent, someone else was responsible. And if he's telling the truth, that person remains unnamed, and in a ministerial position.
    - mathieuh 8y ago
      The UK has a Crown Prosecution Service which is a public service responsible for bringing charges against people. It’s not up to HMG.
      - switch007 8y ago
        According to wikipedia Attorney General is responsible for the CPS, who answers to the Ministry of Justice...which is a Government department.
        M2Ys4U 8y ago
        An AG interfering with or blocking the CPS from bringing a prosecution would be a _big_ deal.
        switch007 8y ago
        That's one way to look at it, sure. But technically it is up to the Government though?
        StaticRedux 8y ago
        Justice Department answers to Trump. Doesn't mean he can tell them to just go arrest someone. No matter how many times he tries.
        switch007 8y ago
        The US is not the UK
    - kodz4 8y ago
      Quite sure thats a Yes Minister episode.
      - inflatableDodo 8y ago
        All of Thatcher-In-The-Rye's tenure has been an extended 'Yes Minister' episode. Though I think the writers would never have gone quite as far as Boris 'Fuck Business' Johnson. Who may very well become our next PM.
        kodz4 8y ago
        I had to google Thatcher in the Rye :) Thanks for the laugh. That said I have hope. The more clowns in power, the more pressure on real leaders to step up. This is a phase where the media and social media have allowed things to happen that no one expected. But we learn from that and things change. For the better. They always do. Or we'd still have a King running things.
        inflatableDodo 8y ago
        >Or we'd still have a King running things. I think you would be surprised how many people in the UK would support that. I have run into a fair amount of very old-school monarchists who fully believe that Liz should seize power in a coup. They also tend to think that we should retake the British Empire and I find myself having to politely explain that these days the rest of the world is slightly better armed than when we first had a go.
      - rjknight 8y ago
        As Williamson will no doubt appreciate, a similar story was an important plot point in the original UK House of Cards (the PM's brother was accused of taking advantage of inside knowledge of government decisions, the PM was implicated in leaking them to him, but the investigation was dropped as soon as he resigned).
  - KaiserPro 8y ago
    true, but normally its a leak of policy, or something politically embarrassing. (brexit will be a great success/terrible failure because of x, delete to taste) But this is different, this is a leak of an actual state secrets. This is much more secret because its expressly illegal. (the official secrets act makes many things vaguely illegal, but leaking things marked "secret" or similar is an actual offence.) Not only is it illegal, its also leaking other country's intelligence, which is a massive nono
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
I think the first indication was when he refused to cooperate with the investigation. Or perhaps he had a Huawei phone.

It's also possible he didn't do it. He hasn't exactly impressed anyone - except himself - during his brief but very exciting tenure, and it's possible May was looking for an excuse to get rid of him while also pointing the finger at a convenient scapegoat. We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't.

Veen 8y ago
We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't. It's amazing it got this far. Leak inquiries almost never discover a culprit (by design) and it's unheard of for a minister to actually get sacked for leaking.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  It's more amazing that Williamson was ever Defence Minister in the first place. Latest: "Theresa May considers the matter closed." So there we are. No police investigation into a rather serious matter of national security. Meanwhile Williamson himself is absolutely insistent he's innocent and that the internal investigation was ineffective - which means that if he is innocent, someone else was responsible. And if he's telling the truth, that person remains unnamed, and in a ministerial position.
  - mathieuh 8y ago
    The UK has a Crown Prosecution Service which is a public service responsible for bringing charges against people. It’s not up to HMG.
    - switch007 8y ago
      According to wikipedia Attorney General is responsible for the CPS, who answers to the Ministry of Justice...which is a Government department.
      - M2Ys4U 8y ago
        An AG interfering with or blocking the CPS from bringing a prosecution would be a _big_ deal.
        switch007 8y ago
        That's one way to look at it, sure. But technically it is up to the Government though?
      - StaticRedux 8y ago
        Justice Department answers to Trump. Doesn't mean he can tell them to just go arrest someone. No matter how many times he tries.
        switch007 8y ago
        The US is not the UK
  - kodz4 8y ago
    Quite sure thats a Yes Minister episode.
    - inflatableDodo 8y ago
      All of Thatcher-In-The-Rye's tenure has been an extended 'Yes Minister' episode. Though I think the writers would never have gone quite as far as Boris 'Fuck Business' Johnson. Who may very well become our next PM.
      - kodz4 8y ago
        I had to google Thatcher in the Rye :) Thanks for the laugh. That said I have hope. The more clowns in power, the more pressure on real leaders to step up. This is a phase where the media and social media have allowed things to happen that no one expected. But we learn from that and things change. For the better. They always do. Or we'd still have a King running things.
        inflatableDodo 8y ago
        >Or we'd still have a King running things. I think you would be surprised how many people in the UK would support that. I have run into a fair amount of very old-school monarchists who fully believe that Liz should seize power in a coup. They also tend to think that we should retake the British Empire and I find myself having to politely explain that these days the rest of the world is slightly better armed than when we first had a go.
    - rjknight 8y ago
      As Williamson will no doubt appreciate, a similar story was an important plot point in the original UK House of Cards (the PM's brother was accused of taking advantage of inside knowledge of government decisions, the PM was implicated in leaking them to him, but the investigation was dropped as soon as he resigned).
- KaiserPro 8y ago
  true, but normally its a leak of policy, or something politically embarrassing. (brexit will be a great success/terrible failure because of x, delete to taste) But this is different, this is a leak of an actual state secrets. This is much more secret because its expressly illegal. (the official secrets act makes many things vaguely illegal, but leaking things marked "secret" or similar is an actual offence.) Not only is it illegal, its also leaking other country's intelligence, which is a massive nono

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

I think the first indication was when he refused to cooperate with the investigation. Or perhaps he had a Huawei phone.