My personal opinion of
Gavin Williamson is not high. He has always struck me as typical of the kind of
self-serving, ambitious oik that pass for politicians these days, and I mourn
the fact that such people are allowed anywhere near Parliament, let alone
Government. His threatening of the Russians and the Chinese
with Britain’s “hard power”, including the sending of an aircraft carrier into
the Chinese backyard to warn them, was a particularly severe example of his
tendency to act like a complete idiot.
Nevertheless, I am deeply
uneasy about the treatment that has been meted out to him over the last 24
hours. And I think it crucial that we separate our opinions of people out from
what is right and wrong, just and unjust.
I fully accept the
possibility that Mr Williamson may well have been the person responsible for
the leak from the National Security Council meeting a couple of weeks ago. I
accept that he may well be lying through his teeth and may turn out to be even
more of a scoundrel than I had previously thought. But we have a tradition in
Britain, which we seem to have all but lost, where we allow people who are
charged with a crime the opportunity to defend themselves.
Of course, Mr Williamson
has not yet been charged with a crime. However the action he is alleged to have
taken is indeed a crime, and therefore he must be given the opportunity to
defend himself against the allegation (and allegation it is), with the apparent
evidence against him presented openly.
My big issue with what
has happened so far is that the Prime Minister and her handlers, of whom my
opinion is roughly the same as my opinion on Mr Williamson, are acting in their
usual high-handed manner and — without having conclusively shown their case to
be right — expect everyone to believe them. Here is what Mrs May said in her
letter to Mr Williamson after the sacking:
“No other credible
version of events to explain this leak has been identified.”
Well, I’ve been paying
attention for long enough to remember some very similar weasel words she used
without presenting proper evidence in a certain case that I have been covering
somewhat extensively. Here’s what she said in her statement to the House of Commons on 14th
March 2018:
“Mr Speaker, there are
therefore only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on the
4th of March … So Mr Speaker, there is no alternative conclusion other than
that the Russian State was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and
his daughter – and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in
Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey.”
I also note that this was
remarkably similar language to that used by the Chairman of the National
Security Council, Mark Sedwill, in his letter to NATO on 13th April 2018:
“We therefore continue to
judge that only Russia has the technical means, operational experience and
motive for the attack on the Skripals and that it is highly likely that the
Russian state was responsible. There is no plausible alternative explanation.”
It should be noted that,
according to Mr Williamson, the accusations against him at the moment stem from
a vendetta from that very same Mark Sedwill.
So we have Mrs May and Mr
Sedwill, who seem to make a habit of coming out with phrases along the lines of
“There’s no any plausible/credible alternative explanation/version of events,”
and yet they seem to do so not only without presenting proper evidence, but by
also insisting that there’s the end of the matter. Which is what they appear to be doing in this case:
“Opposition MPs said
there should be an investigation into whether the Official Secrets Act had been
breached. Downing Street said it had “compelling evidence” and the matter was
closed.”
This seems to be their
modus operandi:
1.
Make accusations
2.
Use weasel phrases like “no other alternative
explanation” (which by the way is an admission that proof is lacking)
3.
Insist that we trust them and move on.
Well I for one don’t. In
failing to produce compelling evidence, and in calling the matter closed so
that Mr Williamson cannot defend himself against what is essentially an
allegation of a crime having been committed, this most dreadful of leaders yet
again shows her disdain for due process and the rule of law.
Let me repeat: Gavin
Williamson may well be guilty of that which he is accused. If that be the case,
let him be prosecuted and face the consequences. But I simply have no
confidence in Mrs May or Mr Sedwill and the way they conduct these matters to
simply take their words on trust. They cite circumstantial evidence to
pronounce “no credible alternative” as if this proved the case (can you not
think of a credible alternative? I can). And then they pronounce the case to be
closed, and ask us to accept it. And so much as I dislike Mr Williamson,
and much as he may well be guilt of this, I am certainly not going to trust the
word of those who act like lawless little despots to tell us the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment