Saturday, 27 April 2019

Shooting The Messenger

Theresa May's Government is the leakiest of any Government in recent times, mainly as she has so many enemies surrounding her desperate to undermine her at every turn that they look to make her look weak at every opportunity.
It is with this in mind that the briefing at the top secret National Security meeting regarding the security implication of the Chinese firm, Huawei, running our 5G network, was leaked to the Times newpaper.
MI5, MI6 have gone apoplectic at the leak which could only have some from inside the Governments higher echelons who in turn have blasted the newspaper for printing the leak they received.
A classic case of shooting the messenger and an attempt to deflect that someone close to Theresa May, a signatory of the The Official Secrets Act, leaked notes from a meeting which was highly sensitive and highly confidential.
The larger implications are that members of the council have now warned that they will not freely share information if they fear it will leak out which is will hinder the government in their job.
No journalist worthy of the name would turn down such information if handed to them on a plate and the case could easily be made for the public interest that they know the implications of Huawei running crucial UK infrastructure.
To try and direct outrage about this leak at the press is to miss the point when the rage should be aimed at Ministers leaking top-secret meetings on national security as a way to harm the Prime Minister.


Liber said...

In the UK, shouldn't it be "stabbing the messenger"?

yawl don't have guns.
you do have lots of stabbings. BTW, when are you gonna outlaw all knives?

Falling on a bruise said...

Outlaws the knives used which are already banned? Ban them twice maybe?

Liber said...

but wait... if the knives are outlawed why do you still have stabbings?

ohhhhhhhhh, criminals don't care about laws.

well, luckily you have police to protect you in the UK!!

but wait, lots of people still get stabbed in the UK...

does that mean the police can't protect everyone?

how can people protect themselves?

Falling on a bruise said...

It's simple, if you have an illegal knife the police come along and arrest you although thanks to an ideological right wing government, less police around so less arrests as everyone told them, including the police, when they started their cutbacks.

Liber said...

this is actually funny to me

you make citizens vulnerable by prohibiting weapons, then advocate for more police - that is not surprising since you always think government is the answer, but

how many police do you think you need?

before you answer, don't forget you need them to be lots of places, 24x7, 7 days a week...

Falling on a bruise said...

The 20,000 that has been cut would be a great start.

Liber said...

yeah, but that is not what i asked. you almost never answer my questions. just want to blast your views...

how many murders did yawl have before the 20,000 were cut? it wasn't zero right? so you think a certain amount of murders are ok then?

i suppose you don't care about burglaries, car theft, assault & battery, or rape since you only yak about murders...

oh, you do care about rape when you can twist circumstances into an attack on Trump/USA. are the police supposed to stop rapes too? dang yawl need a lot of police in a nation where people are disarmed by the government...

the left want to disarm the people then subjugate them to crime... nice Lucy

Falling on a bruise said...

I re-read the bit where you asked: 'how many police do you think you need?'
Then i re-read my answer of: 'The 20,000 that has been cut would be a great start'
The i re-read the bit where you said: 'That is not what i asked. you almost never answer my questions'. ?????

Liber said...

I didn't ask where you would "start". I asked how many you need (the "end") to protect all the unarmed, law-abiding folks from murder.

Also, using the word "start" implies there is more to come... as in start with 20,000 then go up to a bigger number.

And, how many more cops to you need to prevent all the other violent crimes? or are you ok with disarming folks and letting them suffer rape?

So, how many cops do you need to protect all the unarmed folks Lucy?

Liber said...

20,000 is not acceptable because yawl had bunches of murders when you had 20,000 more cops. yawl also had (and have) a higher rate of assault, rape, burglary than the US. so lots of crime in the UK that needs police protection if you are gonna disarm folks.

Falling on a bruise said...

Same answer written in another, more acceptable to you way.

According to the Home Office, Police Workforce and Home Secretary Savid Javid, there should be 4.1 officers for every 1000 citizens but there has been a reduction of 20,000 police since this Government started their £700 million worth of police cuts in 2010 so with 126,000 police today, that makes 3.3 officers for every 1000 at the moment.

I am good to trust them that we need at least the 20,000 back that were cut to go back to the 146,000 or 4.1 figure, (note the AT LEAST), but more would be better (or would be a great start).

Disarming folks? Who is being disarmed as that means to take away their arms, which they haven't got to start with so how can they be disarmed?

Hope you find this answer more to your liking.

Liber said...

well, it is what i expected. another dodge

when yawl had 146,000 police, you still had a lot of murders. so, you need more than 146,000 cops. right?

if you are gonna force law abiding folks to be defenseless, then don't you have an obligation to protect them?

Or do you accept some murders are reasonable? that is very practical of you if you do. but damn cold.

i think it is funny when the left decide to be practical because it is always in an unpractical circumstance (that they created).

you also apparently support making people be defenseless, then allowing them to suffer some rapes and assaults and burglaries... wow

ps - the disarming joke was so funny... when i was 7

Falling on a bruise said...

Strange how even when I give an answer provided by officialdom you disagree. Still didn't answer my disarming question I notice. How and what are they being disarmed of exactly? You think we should have arms as in guns like you nutters?

Liber said...

you turned a legitimate topic into a childish game.

you know that if you had 300,000 police they still couldn't stop all the murders. much less the assaults and rapes.

people need weapons to protect themselves because the police cannot protect everyone. this discourse reveals that you are not fair minded. data does not matter to you. logic does not matter to you.

you just don't want people to have guns Queen Lucy.

Liber said...

they are being disarmed of guns and knives and what ever else Queen Lucy dislikes.

yawl got rid of legally owed firearms and you still have gun murders. you got rid of knives and still have murders. again, you ignore rapes ad assaults. I want to protect my family from both rape and assault, as well as murder. I can do that in America. In the UK it seems you must count on the police.

your silly argument is that 24,000 more cops can do that. that is bullshit

Falling on a bruise said...

I suspected it all along to be fair, it's about you trying to justify your bat shit crazy gun laws.