Diplomatic Leak - ambassador to US about Trump

[garnett]

Absolutely staggering that the UK, whose diplomacy was pretty much the only remaining undisputed area of excellence we had left, has been so damaged in this field.

On the back of of the first ever sacking of a Defence Secretary for personally leaking sensitive security council details, now we have the memos of our most senior Ambassador making their way to the press.

Whats of note is that it was Isabelle Oakeshott who "got the scoop".

It's interesting to wonder how a journalist who *never* gets scoops unless they are about things Wigmore and Banks want out in the public to serve their ends, has got hold of these intensely confidential papers...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148164264580063232

 

[garnett]

The content is not particularly surprising. Ambassadors who may be diplomatic to their hosts should be quite frank in their comments back to the home country. I just hope that whoever leaked gets their trousers taken down.

When you think what national harm its done, Treason doesn't seem an unreasonable description, so I agree - if they can catch the culprit, there needs to be (and, I suspect, will be) serious consequences.

But... If they can't catch the culprit, then I think heads also need to roll.

How can the UK tolerate a situation where our system can't identify who has leaked the most sensitive of documents?

The architects of the system must be accountable.

 

[garnett]

What they discuss in face to face meetings or calls is one thing, but it's basics 101 to never write down anything that you would consider damaging to international relations. It's not just leaks, it's risk of interception, accidental loss, bugging etc.

There seems to be a new culture where people send emails and electronic memos with things they would be horrified to disclose in public. I see it all the time in the legal field. When you're operating at the level he was you take zero risks.

You're completely wrong.

What you describe as "basics 101" is utterly unworkable. If it were, there'd be no need for intelligence agencies, so why would every developed nation spend as much on them as they do?

 

[garnett]

you can criticise/insult anyone you want behind their back but if they ever find out don't expect them to talk to you.

I guess that means you're not in favour of Boris taking the reins...

Here he is calling Trump stupendously ignorant and unfit for office! Ouch.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1148645124555124736

 

[garnett]

Most people (lefties/remainers) say the same of Boris so they should get on like a house on fire, plus they both support Brexit unlike Hunt who isn't saying anything we haven't heard from Theresa May over the last 3 years.

Lets face it during 2 years of Russian collusion propaganda anyone among the establishment who said they liked Trump would have committed career suicide.

Hmmm. So it's all OK, because Boris is stupendously stupid like trump, whereas the ambassador isn't? I'm not sure if I concur with that logic.

And similarly, I don't agree with the sentiment that "the fox wants to get into the chicken coup, so, as long as us chickens pick the cockeral who's willing to let him in, we'll all be fine."

I genuinely have to question what Tweets like this hope to achieve. It's like these hand wringing social media obsessed users would rather see the country fail just to get likes and say "hahaha look we were right".

Huh? Should they leak it instead?

 

[garnett]

What an asinine response.

Obviously they are there to do a job and may express their opinions to the appropriate people, although whether these comments were vaguely professional is another matter altogether.

Which of the ambassador's comments were not "vaguely professional"?

Or, to set the bar at a different level, which of those private comments were less professional than the Twitter comments of the 45th POTUS in response?

 

[garnett]

The job of ambassadors are to have good relations with their host countries. Doesn't matter if its a tin-pot dictator or some bleeding heart liberal. An ambassador that has ****** off the leader of a country has failed even if accidentally.

So you keep on insisting, but that's wrong.

It's the Foreign Office that has failed, not the Ambassador.

 

[garnett]

Isn't that a good thing?

In my own job I deal with various different partners, some have to be treated in certain ways, some in other ways. If an email of mine leaked where I was slating the whole of a particular company I worked with then I would expect to be taken off that account. The relationship would be untenable. Add someone like Trump into the mix and doubly so.

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?

 

[garnett]

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?

 

[garnett]

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.

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****.

 

[garnett]

None of those questions are relevant. .

Completely agree with the rest of your post. My question was for those who appeared to be blaming the ambassador for a lack of discretion while seemingly supportive of Trump.

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.

I absolutely agree. You make a good point about public interest (which most commentators seem to treat almost like a given - that publishing this material *is* in the public interest.)

Another consideration is where should protection of the media kick in? The Mail and Oakeshott are both heavily involved actors in Brexit whose interests have been significantly furthered by their scoop. Is it right that they should be awarded some sort of immunity?