There is no way Kim Darroch should be resigning!

[matts-uk]

Our bloke, doing his job, telling the Embassy the truth, and then it being leaked ...should not lose his job.

Sir Kim did not lose his job, he resigned. In the circumstances resignation is the honourable thing to do, regardless of whom might be to blame.

Someone needs stringing up for leaking information

Absolutely. The actions of whomever is responsible for the leak are tantamount to treason, IMO.

- the whole idea of dimplomacy is that you smile and are polite in public but you tell your own people the truth. All of it.

Yes but you omitted one crucial point - Not getting found out.

[Saracen999]

Sir Kim did not lose his job, he resigned. In the circumstances resignation is the honourable thing to do, regardless of whom might be to blame.

....

I agree entirely .... BUT .... this is the world of realpolitik, and we know most politicians have at least two faces.

Politicians (mostly) backed him entirely, in large part because they had no choice. In the world of face-saving, they had to.

But I'll bet my left gonad that behind closed doors, they were all praying he'd resign, and be right quick about it. After all, given Trump's position, he was going to be about as much use to the UK as a chocolate teapot. And I'd be very surprised if, privately, that wasn't made very clear to him. And by very surprised, I mean I'd bet the other gonad.

Ironically, about the one person with a good reason for wanting him to not resign, or not yet anyway, was Boris Johnson. The longer Darroch held on, the less chance (vanishing to zero chance) of Theresa May picking the next Ambassador. If Darroch had held on until BJ is in No.10 (assuming the polls and pundits are right) and then quit, BJ had a clear path. Which may well be why, with or without private encouragement, he went now.

[Xlucine]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48973861

Ambassador row: Met Police criticised for warning off press
Scotland Yard has been criticised for warning media organisations against publishing leaked government documents.

Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu advised editors it "could be a criminal matter".

His comments came as a criminal investigation was launched into the leak of diplomatic emails from the UK ambassador in the US, Sir Kim Darroch.

Evening Standard editor George Osborne described Mr Basu's statement as "stupid" and "ill-advised".

I'm amazed that journos haven't heard of section 5 of the official secrets act before. It's been law for a considerable length of time now that damaging releases of classified information is a crime, surely that was covered in their journalism degrees?

[Saracen999]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48973861


I'm amazed that journos haven't heard of section 5 of the official secrets act before. It's been law for a considerable length of time now that damaging releases of classified information is a crime, surely that was covered in their journalism degrees?

As a journalist, I didn't need a journalism degree to be aware of that, and on the content of the linked article, the police officer Neil Basu is 100% correct and Osborne is a moron.

Journalists are covered by the Official Secrets Acts, can be prosecuted, can be jailed and there is no public interest defence.

But it's a bit more complicated than that.

It is certainly the case that freedom of the press is of huge importance in an democratic state, and that should and, in practice, give journalists and editors considerable amounts of effective lattitude BUT that does not go so far as to provide protection in law from the Official Secrets Acts

What journalists really have to rely on for protection from OSA cases is a tradition, a convention, of "freedom of the press".

There is certainly a good case for that where the "leak" was, for instance, merely embarrassjng to politicians. Ths obvious example is the wholesale leaks of documents and data about MPs expenses. Then, it was certainly embarrassing for a lot of MPs, career-ending for more than a few, and led to criminal cases for a handful. I cannot see any circumstances under which that wasn't in the public interest, and I'd bet any attempted prosecution would have failed about 5 seconds after it was passed to a jury .... and the press would have had a fuekd day with it.


But can anybody come up with a rational case for how publishing those Darroch emails was in the public interest? All it did was ruin the twilight months of a senior diplomat's career for having the cheek and temerity for doing his job, and to seriously impede the UK government's ability to work with the US President.

In what alternate reality is that in any way "in the public interest"?

Journalism us important to hold governments to account when it does sonething wrong, but that emphatically does not give journalists the right, either moral ir legal, to publish when doing so quite self-evidently actually harms the public interest.

Contrary to what muppets like Osborne apparently believe, journalists are NOT above the law, and with those protections in tradition cmes a duty to use "press freedom" responsibly. So yes, by all means disclose political malfeasance and cite press freedoms as a justification even if that gives no protection in law from OSA prosecutions, but don't publish stuff that damages the nation or public interest and then get on your high horse about press freedom when the only interest being protected was a juicy story.

All that does is weaken those traditions of protection for the rest of us when, next time, it might REALLY be in the public interest to publish.

Which us why you, Mr Osborne, are a moron for arguing that.

Note: To the best of my knowledge, no journalist has been jailed under OSA for many decades ... but that doesn't mean they can't be. And while none have been jailed, more than a few have been arrested, spent months under threat of prosecution, and even had dawn raids with armed police knocking their doors down and searching offices and homes under search warrants.

[Xlucine]

Here's the one wot dun it:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ashington.html

Some takeaways:
- Key quote: He "fears he is being targeted by security services". You could say the same for anyone who breaks the law.
- They still haven't actually read the official secrets act ("No one can deny that this was an intensely embarrassing episode for the Government, but I challenge anyone to show how the publication of these cables and memos in any way imperilled national security" - the bar for prosecution under the official secrets act is merely that the disclosure was "damaging" and related to international relations).
- It's nothing to do with the journo's brexit party membership, he just wanted to find "the truth" about whether "Europhile mandarins have been quietly working to thwart the result of the referendum".
- Having flagrantly broken the law, causing serious harm to the UK's international relations despite knowing full well the harm it would cause, it's safe to say the daily heil really is an enemy of the people.

[Saracen999]

Well, what I get from reading that story is "Naive, young and idiotic amateur risk's nation's interests because he wanted a big story to boost his career. "

Now, he's crying tears of self-pity because he's frightened he might be (and probably is) being investigated himself. Welcome to the big-boy's world, junior.

I would suggest either a decent course in actual journalism, or some real-world experience as an 'apprentice' would be q good idea .... before you step on your own whizz-wang even more badly.

[spacein_vader]

Well, what I get from reading that story is "Naive, young and idiotic amateur risk's nation's interests because he wanted a big story to boost his career. "

Now, he's crying tears of self-pity because he's frightened he might be (and probably is) being investigated himself. Welcome to the big-boy's world, junior.

I would suggest either a decent course in actual journalism, or some real-world experience as an 'apprentice' would be q good idea .... before you step on your own whizz-wang even more badly.

What I get is "19 year old patsy being paid to take the flak ahead of whoever really did it".

Does anyone really think a 19 year old freelancer has those kinds of contacts? He's a lightning rod, nothing more.

[kalniel]

What I get is "19 year old patsy being paid to take the flak ahead of whoever really did it".

Does anyone really think a 19 year old freelancer has those kinds of contacts? He's a lightning rod, nothing more.

Who indeed passed it to the journalist - that would be 'who did it', not the messenger.

[Saracen999]

What I get is "19 year old patsy being paid to take the flak ahead of whoever really did it".

Does anyone really think a 19 year old freelancer has those kinds of contacts? He's a lightning rod, nothing more.

By his own account, he had help. But he claims to be the one doing the leg-work. He also has been developing contacts in proper political blogging for at least a couple of years, and in this day and age, that raises profiles. The leak could easily be a blog-reader.

I can also tell you, from personal experience, that "freelancer" is not necessarily the disadvantage you may think, because the definition of the role of a freelancer is that you're free from the constraints of direct editorial oversight, and precisely because you have contacts all over the place, both inside a variety of publications, and can select the best outlet to place the story. A staffer can't.

The vast bulk of my work was in the tech sector, not politics, and even I had invitations to meetings and even dinner with a variety of billionaire CEO's, and unsolicited invitations to Downing Street meetings. A 'connected' freelsnce blogger, 19 or otherwise, is, IMHO, an entirely credible option for an insider wanting to "leak" and that youth, and the implied naivety, may be part of the reason.

Did he get this on his own? Dunno, as I wasn't there.

But is it credible? Oh, yeah. It is.

[spacein_vader]

By his own account, he had help. But he claims to be the one doing the leg-work. He also has been developing contacts in proper political blogging for at least a couple of years, and in this day and age, that raises profiles. The leak could easily be a blog-reader.

I can also tell you, from personal experience, that "freelancer" is not necessarily the disadvantage you may think, because the definition of the role of a freelancer is that you're free from the constraints of direct editorial oversight, and precisely because you have contacts all over the place, both inside a variety of publications, and can select the best outlet to place the story. A staffer can't.

The vast bulk of my work was in the tech sector, not politics, and even I had invitations to meetings and even dinner with a variety of billionaire CEO's, and unsolicited invitations to Downing Street meetings. A 'connected' freelsnce blogger, 19 or otherwise, is, IMHO, an entirely credible option for an insider wanting to "leak" and that youth, and the implied naivety, may be part of the reason.

Did he get this on his own? Dunno, as I wasn't there.

But is it credible? Oh, yeah. It is.

The freelancer thing doesn't affect my view, it's the age and lack of time he's had to build up said contacts.

There's also the fact the article mentions other (as in non Mail,) publications he'd worked at, and he's not had a single byline at any of them.

[Saracen999]

The freelancer thing doesn't affect my view, it's the age and lack of time he's had to build up said contacts.

There's also the fact the article mentions other (as in non Mail,) publications he'd worked at, and he's not had a single byline at any of them.

There are a number of young but influentual bloggers, and it's more about how many people they reach than their age. At a minimum, to a degree, once you get a certain amount of reputation, contacts come to you. It works in a variety of ways, but here's one possibility - a "source" wants a certain route and may have a variety of better-known contacts and asked one of them who to approach with a certain type of issue.

As for byline, a simple solution there is that, just maybe, he wasn't using his name.

I've come across publications where policy is that they won't use you if you are published in one of their main competitors. But, they sometimes ignore that if you write under a different name. That may be because the writer approaches them under a different name, or even at the publucation's stipulation.

There also writers that use different names in different areas or genres. I didn't do a vast amount in the political field, but what I did do wasn't (* see note) under my name. Good luck finding my byline in some areas, too .... though you would in technology.

Finally, a lot depends on what he was doing at some publications, and if others wirked on certain articles, who contributed how much. Many, maybe most, better-known writers work solo, but not all do, and not all material is attributed at all. Bear in mind, editors always have at least one eye on attracting readers and writers do that simply because of name recognition, so an article written by <well-known name> garners more views and credibility than one written by <who, now? Never heard of hin/her>.

There's a number of reasons why his name might not appear, but I've no idea which, if any, apply here.



*Note - I think none of my political work was done under my name, but just in case an odd piece was, let's say I don't think any was, and certainly, not much was.

[spacein_vader]

I'll have to concede to your greater depth of knowledge Saracen. Before I was 99% sure he was a patsy, now I reckon it's 50-50.

Either way I hope he's prosecuted as he should be for breaking the Official Secrets Act.

[Saracen999]

To be clear, spacein, I'm nit sure either way. You may well be right in that he's a patsy, and I certainly have suspicions that he's been played. All I'm really saying is that, IMHO, it's certainly plausible that he isn't, it's quite conceivable that it happened exactly as he said.If he's taken this on as almost a quest and, in the process of months of researching his quest, someone noticed it and picked him to leak to, well, I certainly find it plausible that it could have happened like that. If it did, there's certainly an element of luck in it.

Frankly, I have no basis for judging whether it did or not, so I hesitate to ascribe a percentage.

But luck happens.

Years ago, I'd done some printer reviews for a computer publication. A while later, I got a call, out of the blue, from the Editor of the Cinnected supplement at the Telegraph. It turns out he'd had lunch with the editor of the mag I'd done some work, including those printers, and asked "Know anyone good with prinrers?"

The editor I was working for suggested me (and if you're reading this Derek, thank you) and the result was not just tgat one article but a working relationship that lasted years.

I also bumped into an editor of a foreign mag on a press trip to Nice and we got chatting over breakfast, and exchanged cards, as you do. Months later, out of the blue .... you guessed it.

And final example .... I was having dinner with the CEO of a pretty large US company when ... let's just say an idea came out. I tried to set it up and it nearly happened, but fell through eventually. But I never thought for a second that, as a humble freeelancer, I'd be invited to dinner with a well-known US CEO, let alone find myself in discussions with the White House trying to set up a Presidential event.

The Downing Street invitations were enough of a surprise, but the Whire House?

Mind you, I also ended up sat opposite and chatting to, the Spanish Ambassador to Canada at a black tie event in Ottawa.

It can be surprising what happens, entirely unsolicited, to a humble freelancer.