Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • 9 Replies
  • 3316 Views

JLR2

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833

Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • on: 02 May 2019 06:22AM
My email to BBC's Breakfast this morning,
 
"With regard to Gavin Williamson’s sacking I would like to suggest that consideration might be given to the possibility that rather than Mr Williamson leaking any information it just could have been Mrs May who has deliberately put the information leaked into the public domain. Mrs May is in need of a serious distraction from her Brexit woes and given she is unable to have the likes of another “Falklands war” she has put what, so far as I am aware, information of the meeting with the security council which does not actually breach the ‘Official Secrets Act’.
 
Mrs May is desperate to look tough and has, in my opinion, sought to remove Williamson as he is the least likely to have the experience or support from within the Conservative Party to fight in comparison to the other senior cabinet ministers present at the meeting.
 
My email is but a suggestion and yes I may be being a bit daft in my thinking but suppose I was right?"

Am I being daft or might I be, as far fetched as it may seem, right?  One of the things that has struck me about this sacking is the haste of May to say everything is settled and the issue closed. As has been said regarding this particular sacking by known figures in the media where civil servants have been accused of breaking the Official Secrets Act they have been investigated by the Police and faced prison so if as May is telling the country by way of her sacking of Williamson that he is the person responsible for the leaking of information from the NSC meeting and therefore stands accused of breaking the Official Secrets Act why has she not brought the Police into matters rather than simply telling us more or less 'move along nothing to see here everything sorted'?
« Last Edit: 02 May 2019 06:34AM by JLR2 »

JLR2

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833

Re: Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • on: 02 May 2019 09:10AM
Come to think of it, May is a fairly spiteful woman according to some folk and earlier this morning, I think it was during the former head of the Army interview on BBC Breakfast, that it was said that Williamson had argued against May's ideas about the Chinese company's involvement in the UK's 5G infrastructure. Well going on her attitude to the Windrush generation, and just about anyone else who don't agree with her idea of what is right or wrong, she does show a tendency to do all that she can to extract retribution from those she can without endangering her position as PM.

Not so long ago many were asking what some of her government ministers had on her as they, the secretaries of state (think Boris, Davis or Grayling), did things that any other PM would have sacked them for well before they resigned in protest to her Brexit policies, in Grayling's case would have by now been sacked instead of simply moved to another cabinet position. I'm more and more becoming of the opinion that May has released this alleged leak making sure that the leak itself did not by the letter of the law actually release hard fact secrets as defined by the Official Secrets Act.

Maybe I just need more coffee >biggrin<   
« Last Edit: 02 May 2019 09:15AM by JLR2 »

KizzyKazaer

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8731

Re: Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • on: 02 May 2019 06:19PM
From the news I've seen and heard, I didn't think he actually gave much away anyhow - all seems a bit of a storm in a teacup to me  >erm<

SteveX

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1463

Re: Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • on: 02 May 2019 07:31PM
As much as I loathe and despise the Tories, this seems like a hatchet job to me.
Member of POMMAS

Monic1511

  • *
  • Moderator Welfare Rights
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2450

Re: Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • on: 02 May 2019 07:34PM
As one of the tory MP'said in the interests of natural justice the evidence should be produced in order to confirm his guilt or exonerate him.

JLR2

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833

Re: Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • on: 02 May 2019 09:08PM
The last thing May wants is a Police investigation, were that to happen and such evidence as the Police recover pointing to Theresa May as the one responsible (sort of making a fake 999 call to distract the media from the Tory Party slaughter at the local elections in England) she would be not only the ex-PM but she'd also be an ex-MP PDQ.

I have still not forgotten Tony Blair's fake heart attack when he was in No10 as PM, he needed to bring about a distraction in the media due to serious issues that were not going well for him and off he was to hospital. Never heard of him (Blair) suffering even the slightest of problems since that day and given the nature of the work he does I would have imagined his heart would have been fairly stressed many a times as he travelled to such as the Middle East or other such areas where danger and violence is never far away.

Sunny Clouds

  • *
  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4803

Re: Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • on: 03 Jun 2019 02:30PM
We'll never know whether the heart attack was real or not in the sense of whether it was or wasn't believed by him and those first attending him to be real.

However, there's a principle I stick to when interpreting things like this.  I call it the Reichstag Fire principle.

This relates to the early rise of Hitler via the legitimate political process. 

I'm guessing but not assuming that most of you will know that when Hitler & the Nazis got into parliament they didn't to begin with have the power they wanted.  Then there was a fire in the Reichstag, the Parliament.  The Nazis said the Communists started it and indeed someone was prosecuted and convicted.

Hitler used it as an excuse to use secondary legislation to invoke an existing statute allowing for a state of emergency to be declared and human rights suspended.  That was all the toehold the Nazis needed and all hell broke loose politically.

Even when I was a child, you'd still find people who'd have strong views on whether the Communists set the fire, whether the Nazis set the fire and blamed the Communists, whether a random arsonist or even someone being careless in some way did it.  (Think Notre Dame and building works or think Grenfell and malfunctioning kitchenware.)

More recently, I've watched a short documentary on Youtube about it, which I hoped would be an exploration of the political use of it, but which turned out to be a fervent pro-Nazi argument that it was set by the Communists, whom the documentary maker clearly felt hostile to.

All of which is academically and maybe historically interesting but besides the point politically.  What matters politically is what was done next.  They didn't actually need a fire, there were lots of other things they could have used, caused by them or by others.

So I could, on a ruminative day, get interested I suppose in the issue of whether Blair really had a heart attack, but actually the issue of whether he did, whether he didn't but believed he did, or whether he didn't and just faked it isn't the point for me, so much as the fact that he made use of the situation.

It w3as a bit desperate really.  A good politician (politically, not ethically) knows how to distract without that sort of thing.  After all, how does a possible heart attack increase people's sense that you're in a fit state to be listened to?  Surely it would be more to the point to be distracting from a heart attack rather than using it as a distraction.

Besides which, being frank, I don't remember the heart attack incident, so he didn't make as much use of it as he could have done.

On the other hand, his approach to persuading politicians and the public of the rightness of invading Iraq left a lot to be desired, but it still worked.

I think the master stroke of distraction politically in recent years was the celebration of the anniversary of the funeral of Churchill. Since when did we celebrate the anniversary of a funeral?  Desperate grabbing at something to occupy the headlines, but it did just that.

I'd like to stress that this is not an assertion that Blair's heart attack was real, merely an assertion that politically as opposed to in terms of general interest, the reality or otherwise of it isn't very significant.

Incidentally, a friend of mine, with no prior history of heart trouble, saw the GP about her 'indigestion', came home and had a cardiac arrest at 29.  She was resuscitated, and despite being told by the doctor, putting it in layman's terms for her and her huband that 'half her heart muscle was dead', she went back to bringing up her lively children.  She smoked but ate healthily until she started to have a problem, maybe heading into anorexia, then went down with an infection that appeared at first to be flu.  She got some sort of sepsis, and her organs failed one after another.  Her heart was last to go.  She was 37.  So complete cardiac arrest, major damage to heart, running around seemingly ok for another 8 years, killed by an infection that could have killed anyone.  Bodies are weird.  (Like politicians!)
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

JLR2

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833

Re: Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • on: 10 Jun 2019 04:31PM
To my mind Blair's heart attack was faked, it was done and exploited in such a way as to give him just enough distraction in media attention from other events to get through the awkwardness he was facing at the time. Once these awkward events were forgotten by the media, which can be prone to having the attention span of a gnat, Blair reassumed his ways and carried on.

Given recent events being reported in Scotland regarding Rockall Island in the north Atlantic, where there is a row between the Scottish Government and the government of Ireland to do with fishing rights, it will be interesting to see if the 'UK' government will make use of the Royal Navy to protect what is claimed by the UK to be a British territory as they did when Thatcher used the Falklands to her advantage when things looked precarious so far as her soon to be faced general election. As things stood at the time most commentators were in agreement that she was likely to lose that upcoming election and history shows just what happened post the Falklands conflict.

Monic1511

  • *
  • Moderator Welfare Rights
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2450

Re: Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • on: 10 Jun 2019 07:25PM
Since Ireland has been ignoring the UK claim to Rockall for years I wonder what triggered this intervention from Scottish Government.  Or what are they trying to distract us from? ok so I'm a cynic  >whistle<

JLR2

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833

Re: Gavin Williamson's sacking

  • on: 10 Jun 2019 10:09PM
Even though I am a member of the SNP I can see or rather think of what they (the Scottish government) might be up to. Whilst there are many areas of government devolved to the Scottish Parliament Defence is not one of them therefor it cannot command the Royal Navy to intervene in the seas around Rockall however the UK government can and as we saw with the Falklands war send the Royal Navy, RAF and British Army thousands of miles to protect British interests, despite the costs and without hesitation by Thatcher.

If the UK government chooses to or appears to ignore the illegal fishing by Irish registered vessels in British waters it will be claimed in the Scottish Parliament that the only reason they are doing so is because the area involved is in Scottish waters. Were these Irish vessels to be considered to be illegally fishing off the Isle of Wight as within our territorial waters area the UK government would not hesitate to intervene, would it?
« Last Edit: 10 Jun 2019 10:12PM by JLR2 »