Which of the ambassador's private comments was inaccurate, and which do you consider more "slating" and unprofessional than the public twitter response from Trump in his role as 45th president of the United States?
Diplomatic Leak - ambassador to US about Trump
- Thread starter garnett
- Start date
Soldato
I would never suggest that our ambassadors should act like the leaders of the countries they deal with, especially Trump. What a silly argument.
What a silly strawman argument you've put up there.
Are you able answer what I actually asked?
Caporegime
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48971791
Well well well. Some people could and should be getting royal screwed.
I'm sure this will age well...
They will just blame Russian hackers and the left will start acting all hysterical again. Speakers Corner should be funny to read mind, if anyone wants a laugh go read the Trump thread 2-3 years ago when the Russian collusion propaganda was at its peak. The fact that many people who pointed out it was rubbish were banned from posting there means there's fewer sane posts to read through.
Last edited:
Aw bless. Look how he's picked up "collusion" from all the times Trump drilled it into him.
Did Russians help Trump win? - Yup.
Can they prove Trump was clever enough to be criminally involved - tbc.
Just like here... Is Oakeshott clever or hard-working enough to get a scoop she isn't fed? - Nope.
Will whoever fed her the leaks have covered their tracks well enough? - tbc.
All we know for certain is that the people who want to believe the people emboldening bigotry are ready to swallow the bull****.
Soldato
Love how it's an "alleged leak". Pretty sure there's nothing alleged about it.
I think we would act the same even if it as obvious of knowing how dumb Theresa May is. Say it but don't get caught.
Since the ambassador is part of the Foreign Office then ultimately it is the same thing.
Yeah all those Russians that voted in the US Elections got him in /s
I think they mean they assume it's a leak rather than the emails stolen/hacked, but don't know for sure yet
Soldato
When I signed the Official Secrets Act, I didn’t get told of any caveats like “being in the public interest”.
It was very much “Breach this in the morning and you’ll be in prison by teatime.”
It was very much “Breach this in the morning and you’ll be in prison by teatime.”
Isn't 'being in the public interest' the justification the papers can use in publishing them, not by the leaker for leaking them.
Er, they did help him get in - well, Russia as a State Actor, not the people of Russia.
It's well documented - they set up VOIP phones, when the vote was cast it would auto reassign a new IP and recast another vote x infinity.
Almost 50/50 come election day - what better way to put a country into confusion/hostility when half the country wants one president and the other half want another - amazing work from the adversaries
Soldato
Could be. I was under the impression the OSA was a “Don’t do this” arrangement, rather than a “Don’t do this unless X = true” one.
Russian cheats at everything though, I don't know why people are so surprised by it all. If we want a clean vote we need to scrap online voting completely.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,905
We cant vote online though...?
Just more Americanised politik for you to digest pointlessly, they're addicted to bringing irrelevancies over here.
Commissario
Erm America doesn't use phone voting for elections, even for them it's too insecure although I'm sure if some donor put some money towards the politicians they'd come up with some reason why it was suddenly a great idea, until then they tend to use electronic voting machines that have minimal security, not audit trail (in most states), and in some cases are connected to the internet, and in most cases are unpatched running software that is years out of date.
But apparently it's "easier" and "faster" to do it via these machines (whose manufacturers all have links to the politicians deciding how votes are made, even if just via large donations), than the paper system that most other countries still consider safe and easy to use.
The problem is it's being abused, it's reaching a point where anything that authorities don't want the plebs to hear about is considered a "threat to national security" these days. It's just become another form of censorship. I think if we have ambassadors who are hostile towards our allies, whether in public or behind closed doors then we have a right to know about it and demand a replacement. The bigger threat to national security is rabid remainers in positions of power like US ambassador roles who can't accept anything but EU rule and are actively trying to sabotage Brexit and any move towards national sovereignty.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
None of those questions are relevant. Diplomacy requires discretion and deception, even regarding allies. The key word in your post is "private". What a diplomat says publically and what they say privately may well be very different things. That's the nature of diplomacy. Their report to home, which should have been private, was obviously slating. Nobody has said it was unprofessional (quite the opposite, actually - the diplomat was being very professional). Accuracy is also irrelevant - it was the diplomat's opinion, not an objective measurement of anything. Comparing it to Trump is silly. No sane person would call Trump a diplomat. He has about the same level of diplomatic skill as a drunken monkey.
In this case, both the diplomat and Trump are in the right. The UK diplomat gave his honest opinion to the UK government while being diplomatic with the USA government, which is what he should be doing. The president of the USA refused to work with a foreign diplomat who has an extremely low and publically known opinion of the USA government, which is what he should be doing.
When my father signed the OSA, it was very explicitly an elaborate but very clear statement of "Do Not Talk About This". No ifs, no buts, no maybes, no circumstances in which it didn't apply. You did not talk about it to any person, at any time. You did not talk about it to your dog. You did not talk about it to yourself. Even 50 years later, when it probably no longer mattered, he didn't mention it. Or maybe it did still matter. I only ever had the vaguest idea of what he did. Something to do with cryptography in the military. I never even knew his security clearance, only that he had one. He had agreed to not talk about it, so he didn't. Simple as that.
Just as an aside - you don't actually need to sign the OSA for it to apply, it technically applies to everyone regardless, signing it is more just a way of you acknowledging that you understand you're bound by this law you're already bound by.
The person responsible for the leak (if caught) should be prosecuted.
The way the press is handled though becomes a bit muddled, on one hand in a free society you want a free press as much as possible. Obviously there are legitimate reasons for wanting to restrict the press in some areas such as protecting criminal trials, protecting people from libel/defamation and just protecting people's privacy in some situations.
Obviously you'd not expect a UK newspaper to publish say leaked top secret technical details of the UK's nuclear program and you'd perhaps expect them to have to hand back such information if they had it. Other things might be in the public interest. This leak, which has cost a UK Ambassador his job gets a bit close to a great area. Diplomatic communications ought to be protected, they're not in themselves political but are the communications of a civil servant expressing quite frank opinions and providing useful information. This isn't some evidence of corruption or wrongdoing leaked by a whistleblower, it is interesting to read the views but they're not really (IMHO) in the public interests. UK ambassador has sane assessment of trump... well no ****, you'd probably find plenty of other ambassadors; European, Australian, Canadian, NZ have very similar opinions too.
The person responsible for the leak (if caught) should be prosecuted.
The way the press is handled though becomes a bit muddled, on one hand in a free society you want a free press as much as possible. Obviously there are legitimate reasons for wanting to restrict the press in some areas such as protecting criminal trials, protecting people from libel/defamation and just protecting people's privacy in some situations.
Obviously you'd not expect a UK newspaper to publish say leaked top secret technical details of the UK's nuclear program and you'd perhaps expect them to have to hand back such information if they had it. Other things might be in the public interest. This leak, which has cost a UK Ambassador his job gets a bit close to a great area. Diplomatic communications ought to be protected, they're not in themselves political but are the communications of a civil servant expressing quite frank opinions and providing useful information. This isn't some evidence of corruption or wrongdoing leaked by a whistleblower, it is interesting to read the views but they're not really (IMHO) in the public interests. UK ambassador has sane assessment of trump... well no ****, you'd probably find plenty of other ambassadors; European, Australian, Canadian, NZ have very similar opinions too.