Also in the news

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

I dunno, what he said was right - no doubt but he is err y’know a diplomat. Which begs the question of what an earth was he thinking using language like that in emails? Words like inept and incompetent are not necessary to use to put a point across and in positions of public office, doing so is career suicide.

 

Part of being a diplomat is being able to craft diplomatic communications.

 

He’s useless now in terms of his role as ambassador as a result of his lack of diplomatic ability and its right he should resign so somebody else can build a new relationship.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with what he wrote but I wouldn’t get away with writing emails like that to my closest allies in my previous public jobs and certainly wouldn’t role the dice on doing so if I held one of the highest ranking ambassadorial roles the UK had to offer.

 

 

Was going to respond to this but Alf said pretty much what I wanted to say. Though I have next to no confidence wrt the leaker being found depending on who comes in to replace him.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

His term was ending this year, we should have insisted he sit there and twiddle his thumbs. It's an international embarrassment to have your ambassador vetoed by the receiving country, we shouldn't be bending to the whim of any foreign leader on such a matter. Shouldn't have been allowed to happen. No leadership yet again and frankly weird that people accept it has to be this way. 

 

Appoint someone else to do precisely the same job that Darroch was doing, but ensure better security of communications (or discretion, if security cannot be guaranteed).

 

It's not as if the UK Govt sacked Darroch, which would have been embarrassing. He's being realistic in saying that, due to Trump's disrespect/ego, he cannot do his job or represent our interests properly. He only has value to the UK if he can do his job properly. So we appoint someone who can...not someone to suit Trump. No point cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Appoint someone else to do precisely the same job that Darroch was doing, but ensure better security of communications (or discretion, if security cannot be guaranteed).

 

It's not as if the UK Govt sacked Darroch, which would have been embarrassing. He's being realistic in saying that, due to Trump's disrespect/ego, he cannot do his job or represent our interests properly. He only has value to the UK if he can do his job properly. So we appoint someone who can...not someone to suit Trump. No point cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I wish I had confidence in this happening.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Appoint someone else to do precisely the same job that Darroch was doing, but ensure better security of communications (or discretion, if security cannot be guaranteed).

 

It's not as if the UK Govt sacked Darroch, which would have been embarrassing. He's being realistic in saying that, due to Trump's disrespect/ego, he cannot do his job or represent our interests properly. He only has value to the UK if he can do his job properly. So we appoint someone who can...not someone to suit Trump. No point cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

Johnson is going to be Trump's poodle - if it wasn't obvious before, it is now that we've seen how he refused to support Darroch, in contrast to May and Hunt.

 

Brexit was always going to be a clusterfvck but under Johnson's leadership, I genuinely fear for our country.

[Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Appoint someone else to do precisely the same job that Darroch was doing, but ensure better security of communications (or discretion, if security cannot be guaranteed).

 

It's not as if the UK Govt sacked Darroch, which would have been embarrassing. He's being realistic in saying that, due to Trump's disrespect/ego, he cannot do his job or represent our interests properly. He only has value to the UK if he can do his job properly. So we appoint someone who can...not someone to suit Trump. No point cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

He left because Boris refused to back him unlike anyone else. He has essentially walked before the future PM pushes him, its embarrassing that the soon-to-be PM doesn't stick up for his civil servants just doing their job.

And precedence has just been created to say that if Trump decides he doesn't want to work with an ambassador we'll just see them replaced thus his replacement becomes someone to suit Trump. If Trump wants to cut off some diplomatic ties with the UK fine, our subservience isn't fine.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I wish I had confidence in this happening.

 

I certainly have no confidence in it happening under Boris.

 

Hopefully, May can appoint someone before he's PM. While I don't have much time for May, I do think she'd try to stand up for British interests in this case - and would have no personal reason not to, given that she'll be gone soon.

I imagine that she loathes both Trump and Boris on a personal level, too. That could be another reason why he's done the right thing in falling on his sword quickly.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

He left because Boris refused to back him unlike anyone else. He has essentially walked before the future PM pushes him, its embarrassing that the soon-to-be PM doesn't stick up for his civil servants just doing their job.

And precedence has just been created to say that if Trump decides he doesn't want to work with an ambassador we'll just see them replaced thus his replacement becomes someone to suit Trump. If Trump wants to cut off some diplomatic ties with the UK fine, our subservience isn't fine.

 

Your first sentence is speculation. It might be part of the explanation, but it might not. He said that he resigned because he couldn't do his job properly due to being frozen out. It's reasonable to assume that was at least part of the explanation.

 

As for setting precedents, doing something once doesn't mean that it has to be done again. If someone else takes up the baton, does exactly the same job but avoids such leaks, no harm done, especially as Darroch was leaving in a few months, anyway.

If Trump tries to force our hand again, we can make a stand next time - picking our battles carefully, as May has done, to be fair. Of course, I've zero confidence in Boris (or a hypothetical Deputy PM Farage) doing that....

 

Incidentally, I hope a few Brexiteers anticipating great new global trade deals and relying on Trump's USA are waking up. No doubt such deals will be possible, sooner or later, but on strictly "America First" terms....or "China First" with Xi etc.

Of all periods of history to choose to "go it alone" in the world.... We're like a particularly stupid codfish jumping into shark-infested waters, or a 7-stone weakling deciding to try out life as a football hooligan...by walking into the Millwall away end, naked but for a Leeds scarf, shouting "I'll take all you Cockney scum!" 

[Wymsey]

Angela Merkel is seen shaking again for the third time in recent weeks.

Surely, it's only a matter of time now before she has to reveal more about what's causing it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48938691

Edited 10 July 2019 by Wymeswold fox

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I certainly have no confidence in it happening under Boris.

 

Hopefully, May can appoint someone before he's PM. While I don't have much time for May, I do think she'd try to stand up for British interests in this case - and would have no personal reason not to, given that she'll be gone soon.

I imagine that she loathes both Trump and Boris on a personal level, too. That could be another reason why he's done the right thing in falling on his sword quickly.

There's something in that.

 

If that is all the case, May has to make the correct choice fast.

[Kopfkino]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Your first sentence is speculation. It might be part of the explanation, but it might not. He said that he resigned because he couldn't do his job properly due to being frozen out. It's reasonable to assume that was at least part of the explanation.

 

As for setting precedents, doing something once doesn't mean that it has to be done again. If someone else takes up the baton, does exactly the same job but avoids such leaks, no harm done, especially as Darroch was leaving in a few months, anyway.

If Trump tries to force our hand again, we can make a stand next time - picking our battles carefully, as May has done, to be fair. Of course, I've zero confidence in Boris (or a hypothetical Deputy PM Farage) doing that....

 

 

 

 

Senior diplomats said after May's backing he was staying on despite Trump's tweets. So he was fine to carry on unable to do his job yesterday but not today? The only thing that changed since then is Boris' refusal to back him and it seems pretty reasonable to speculate that he thought it pointless staying when he'll be gone in a matter of weeks anyway.

 

Oh right so if Trump decides he doesn't like the next appointment and makes sure he's unable to do his job we're all of a sudden going to take a stand, even though you know it'd be Boris in charge of the situation and you have zero confidence in him. We can make a stand next time  Jesus wept. The fact that he only had a few months made it easier to take a stand, it was a short-term measure to show we won't be bullied, that we will continue to expect standard diplomatic protocol and back our civil service, and that we're not subservient to Washington.

 

If people haven't woken up to the fact there won't be a US trade deal yet I don't think they're ever going to. 

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Appoint someone else to do precisely the same job that Darroch was doing, but ensure better security of communications (or discretion, if security cannot be guaranteed).

 

It's not as if the UK Govt sacked Darroch, which would have been embarrassing. He's being realistic in saying that, due to Trump's disrespect/ego, he cannot do his job or represent our interests properly. He only has value to the UK if he can do his job properly. So we appoint someone who can...not someone to suit Trump. No point cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Should have reciprocated by excluding the US ambassador in the same way as Trump has. Britain really will be Trump’s poodle after Brexit.

Edited 10 July 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Your first sentence is speculation. It might be part of the explanation, but it might not. He said that he resigned because he couldn't do his job properly due to being frozen out. It's reasonable to assume that was at least part of the explanation.

 

As for setting precedents, doing something once doesn't mean that it has to be done again. If someone else takes up the baton, does exactly the same job but avoids such leaks, no harm done, especially as Darroch was leaving in a few months, anyway.

If Trump tries to force our hand again, we can make a stand next time - picking our battles carefully, as May has done, to be fair. Of course, I've zero confidence in Boris (or a hypothetical Deputy PM Farage) doing that....

 

Incidentally, I hope a few Brexiteers anticipating great new global trade deals and relying on Trump's USA are waking up. No doubt such deals will be possible, sooner or later, but on strictly "America First" terms....or "China First" with Xi etc.

Of all periods of history to choose to "go it alone" in the world.... We're like a particularly stupid codfish jumping into shark-infested waters, or a 7-stone weakling deciding to try out life as a football hooligan...by walking into the Millwall away end, naked but for a Leeds scarf, shouting "I'll take all you Cockney scum!" 

 

 

Hmm.

 

I'm not sure what Freud would make of the inclusion of nakedness in this scenario, Alf...

[Alf Bentley]

46 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Senior diplomats said after May's backing he was staying on despite Trump's tweets. So he was fine to carry on unable to do his job yesterday but not today? The only thing that changed since then is Boris' refusal to back him and it seems pretty reasonable to speculate that he thought it pointless staying when he'll be gone in a matter of weeks anyway.

 

Dalloch took the decision, not "senior diplomats". I already said that Boris' comments may well have been a factor - along with other issues: being refused access to official meetings, the time to think, the opinions of unknown third parties...

I don't know the full story or which factors weighs heaviest. But you go ahead and pretend that it was a black-and-white issue and that you know it all, if you like! 

 

If you're right and he based his resignation solely on Boris' comments, he's going to feel a bit stupid if Hunt gets a surprise victory in the leadership election! 

 

Quote

 

Oh right so if Trump decides he doesn't like the next appointment and makes sure he's unable to do his job we're all of a sudden going to take a stand, even though you know it'd be Boris in charge of the situation and you have zero confidence in him. We can make a stand next time  Jesus wept. The fact that he only had a few months made it easier to take a stand, it was a short-term measure to show we won't be bullied, that we will continue to expect standard diplomatic protocol and back our civil service, and that we're not subservient to Washington.

 

Trump reacted to the leaking of critical private comments. If the comments of a new ambassador were not leaked, such a reaction might not be repeated. Trump hadn't sought to oust the ambassador previously, as far as I'm aware. Shouldn't be impossible to avoid repeat leaks. If Trump does try to oust another ambassador, yes, we can make a stand second time round. To adopt the favourite theme of the British Right: the tactical retreat of Dunkirk led eventually to glorious victory of our proud island nation, standing alone! 

 

So, under your recommended scenario, we end up with a lame duck ambassador for six months, further irritate Trump's ego....and you then think he'd be LESS likely to use his habitual bullying use of power by being awkward over the new ambassador? Absolutely no reason to assume he'd moderate his behaviour in that way. If anything, every reason to think he'd be MORE likely to be difficult.

 

I said we "can make a stand next time", not that we "will" under Boris. I don't know whether the new appointment will be made under May or Boris. I don't know whether Boris or Hunt will be the new PM (though I've a pretty good idea). I don't know how much say Boris will have in practice over the new appointment. Presumably you know the answers to all these questions, given the self-confidence with which you express your sneering sarcasm?  

 

Edited 10 July 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Kopfkino]

23 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Dalloch took the decision, not "senior diplomats". I already said that Boris' comments may well have been a factor - along with other issues: being refused access to official meetings, the time to think, the opinions of unknown third parties...

I don't know the full story or which factors weighs heaviest. But you go ahead and pretend that it was a black-and-white issue and that you know it all, if you like! 

 

If you're right and he based his resignation solely on Boris' comments, he's going to feel a bit stupid if Hunt gets a surprise victory in the leadership election! 

 

 

Trump reacted to the leaking of critical private comments. If the comments of a new ambassador were not leaked, such a reaction might not be repeated. Trump hadn't sought to oust the ambassador previously, as far as I'm aware. Shouldn't be impossible to avoid repeat leaks. If Trump does try to oust another ambassador, yes, we can make a stand second time round. To adopt the favourite theme of the British Right: the tactical retreat of Dunkirk led eventually to glorious victory of our proud island nation, standing alone! 

 

So, under your recommended scenario, we end up with a lame duck ambassador for six months, further irritate Trump's ego....and you then think he'd be LESS likely to use his habitual bullying use of power by being awkward over the new ambassador? Absolutely no reason to assume he'd moderate his behaviour in that way. If anything, every reason to think he'd be MORE likely to be difficult.

 

I said we "can make a stand next time", not that we "will" under Boris. I don't know whether the new appointment will be made under May or Boris. I don't know whether Boris or Hunt will be the new PM (though I've a pretty good idea). I don't know how much say Boris will have in practice over the new appointment. Presumably you know the answers to all these questions, given the self-confidence with which you express your sneering sarcasm?  

 

 

Vary well Alf, I'll leave you in your recent default position of just taking umbrage with any expression of an alternate argument and I'll just sit and smile at your pettiness. 

[Nick]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I disagree that he was at fault in any way.

 

It's part of being a diplomat to craft diplomatic communications to the representatives of other nations. Another part is to be clear and open in communications with the representatives of your own nation.

 

He clearly acted in confidence that his communications would not be leaked - and he should have been justified in having such confidence.

His comments were not highly original or especially articulate, but he did nothing wrong in making them.

 

Serious questions should be asked about communications security & those who perpetrated or commissioned the leak should have a ton of bricks descend upon them.

I appreciate your view point but even in private and confidential emails it’s possible to craft the same clear message utilising alternative language and it would have been prudent of him to do so and possibly more tactfully becoming of his office.

Edited 10 July 2019 by Nick

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I appreciate your view point but even in private and confidential emails it’s possible to craft the same clear message utilising alternative language and it would have been prudent of him to do so and possibly more tactfully becoming of his office.

 

I take your point that he didn't express himself with subtlety or elegance.

 

But if you want to transmit the message that someone is inept, dysfunctional and insecure, how do you express that in a way that gets the message across but is not offensive if it falls into their hands?

"Trump lacks a degree of efficiency, his decision-making systems do not operate with full effectiveness and he can take personal offence easily" 

Would it be any better if that fell into the wrong hands? 

 

Have a try yourself at effectively transmitting a highly critical message without it offending the target if they chance upon it.....could be a new game or task for English Language exams. 

 

He wrote clearly but without subtlety or politesse in the expectation that Trump's people would never see his words.....unfortunately they did.

[Nick]

36 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I take your point that he didn't express himself with subtlety or elegance.

 

But if you want to transmit the message that someone is inept, dysfunctional and insecure, how do you express that in a way that gets the message across but is not offensive if it falls into their hands?

"Trump lacks a degree of efficiency, his decision-making systems do not operate with full effectiveness and he can take personal offence easily" 

Would it be any better if that fell into the wrong hands? 

 

Have a try yourself at effectively transmitting a highly critical message without it offending the target if they chance upon it.....could be a new game or task for English Language exams. 

 

He wrote clearly but without subtlety or politesse in the expectation that Trump's people would never see his words.....unfortunately they did.

I understand Alf, I really do. But your job as a diplomat is precisely to ‘effectively transmit highly critical messages without offending the target should they by chance upon it!’ 

 

?

[Nick]

What are you confused about @Toddybad ?

 

?

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I take your point that he didn't express himself with subtlety or elegance.

 

But if you want to transmit the message that someone is inept, dysfunctional and insecure, how do you express that in a way that gets the message across but is not offensive if it falls into their hands?

"Trump lacks a degree of efficiency, his decision-making systems do not operate with full effectiveness and he can take personal offence easily" 

Would it be any better if that fell into the wrong hands? 

 

Have a try yourself at effectively transmitting a highly critical message without it offending the target if they chance upon it.....could be a new game or task for English Language exams. 

 

He wrote clearly but without subtlety or politesse in the expectation that Trump's people would never see his words.....unfortunately they did.

He could learn alot from me bout using language

[Buce]

21 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

I understand Alf, I really do. But your job as a diplomat is precisely to ‘effectively transmit highly critical messages without offending the target should they by chance upon it!’ 

 

?

 

No it isn't - your job is to keep your government informed of those things that it needs to be kept informed of.

 

There should be zero possibility of the 'target' chancing upon it - they didn't 'chance upon it' this time, it was clearly maliciously leaked.

Edited 11 July 2019 by Buce

[urban.spaceman]

Twitter’s going to be fun during Panarama. 

 

[Nick]

16 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

No it isn't - your job is to keep your government informed of those things that it needs to be kept informed of.

 

There should be zero possibility of the 'target' chancing upon it - they didn't 'chance upon it' this time, it was clearly malaciously leaked.

Agreed. There should be zero possibility of the target chancing upon it but in this day and age there isn’t sadly. The person who leaked it should definitely be brought to justice but the whole lot of communication could have been put differently with the same message/ narrative.

[Izzy]

56 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

What are you confused about @Toddybad ?

 

?

@Toddybad doesn't see to post anymore, just reacts to others posts.

 

Not sure if he's banned from posting, but if he does come back on here we also need @MattP back posting again to balance the books 

[urban.spaceman]

Metaphor. 

[David Guiza]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48950672 and he's gone