Walker570 Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 I have read all the news reports on the sacking of Gavin Williamson and have come to the conclusion the grey suits behind May do not want the Met to come in and do an enquiry. The evidence given to the fact he leaked the details are so thin, even the most inept Magistrate would thow it out of court let alone a Judge. The simple fact that Mr. Williamson has asked for a full police enquiry to clear his name adds fuel to the suspicion that he has been railroaded. There is no evidence that would stand in a court of law and there is no doubt the Prime Minister knows that, knows who leaked it and why and has closed the case to shut it down. I hope that Mr Williamson takes it up and insists that there is a full enquiry. This woman is starting to act like a Dictator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 i dont think she would have been stupid enough to sack him like that unless she had 100% sit'rep'...................released the report would further comprimise the secrets act........williamson knows this and he is calling her bluff i rekon............... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted May 3, 2019 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 (edited) She sacked him because he had a phone call with a reporter, they have the full details of that conversation, MI5 was called in to investigate. They don't need to reveal any secrets. The grey suit who 'advised' May had already drawn swords with Williamson over other issues relating to Williamson wantng better facilities etc for the Armed Forces. As an ex Cop, the whole thing stinks. If they are sure it was him, then why is he not being prosecuted ? She expected him to resign but he didn't, he told her he wouldn't because he had not done it and she would have to sack him which rocked her back on her heels apparently. Edited May 3, 2019 by Walker570 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbriar Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 .........and he remains adamant of his innocence. If that's the case, isn't he entitled to be given some opportunity to clear his name ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 he broke the secrets act.................when i signed it ..i was made very well aware of the consiquences if breached..........................when they all sit around a table and discuss world security with the services....they dont expect it to be in the papers the next day............as far as im concerned williamson should tried and if found that he has broken the act ,should be put away .................i believe it is 2-14 years.................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 8 minutes ago, ditchman said: he broke the secrets act.................when i signed it ..i was made very well aware of the consiquences if breached..........................when they all sit around a table and discuss world security with the services....they dont expect it to be in the papers the next day............as far as im concerned williamson should tried and if found that he has broken the act ,should be put away .................i believe it is 2-14 years.................... So, what happened to, 'innocent until proved guilty? What do you think should happen if there was to be a trial and he was either found innocent or it was deemed that there was no case to answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 It is virtually impossible for anyone to prove unsubstantiated allegations made against them! You cant prove a negative? Those accusing him should be forced to prove his guilt in a court of law......... Contrary to what the establishment might want.........the law says your innocent until proven guilty.......not guilty until you prove yourself innocent!....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 6 minutes ago, panoma1 said: It is virtually impossible for anyone to prove unsubstantiated allegations made against them! You cant prove a negative? Those accusing him should be forced to prove his guilt in a court of law......... Contrary to what the establishment might want.........the law says your innocent until proven guilty.......not guilty until you prove yourself innocent!....... That's reserved for the shooters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 25 minutes ago, wymberley said: So, what happened to, 'innocent until proved guilty? What do you think should happen if there was to be a trial and he was either found innocent or it was deemed that there was no case to answer. 9 minutes ago, panoma1 said: It is virtually impossible for anyone to prove unsubstantiated allegations made against them! You cant prove a negative? Those accusing him should be forced to prove his guilt in a court of law......... Contrary to what the establishment might want.........the law says your innocent until proven guilty.......not guilty until you prove yourself innocent!....... and that is exactly what williamson knows............................as i said before may would not have done that unless she was 100% sure...i dont like her ...but on that score i dont think she can be that stupid............... this is something (yet something else)...........that will rumble on and on........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, ditchman said: and that is exactly what williamson knows............................as i said before may would not have done that unless she was 100% sure...i dont like her ...but on that score i dont think she can be that stupid............... this is something (yet something else)...........that will rumble on and on........... I think that's correct. It's politics so it'll be for a long time - about a week. She has said that she has sacked him, not because he has committed an offence (he has if he did leak that info) but because she has lost confidence in him. Well, Madame, there's a fair few million out there who are thinking exactly the same about you, so please hurry up and do as you promised and sack yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSpredder Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 18 minutes ago, ditchman said: ..... i dont think she can be that stupid ...... I believe she is capable of being extremely stupid. (That opinion is based on watching her attempts to run the country and negotiate with the EU, and I don't pretend to know anything at all about the Gavin Williamson incident). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, wymberley said: That's reserved for the shooters. Yes absolutely!.......Evidence the "precautionary principle" invoked by NE to control and "regulate" Wildfowling consents.....they have no proof any particular activity is detrimental to wildfowl.......but if they don't like it, they will stop it, in case it is!.....it is up to Wildfowlers to "prove" the activity is not detrimental to wildfowl!!!!!.........How the **** do you prove a negative? They have no proof it does, Wildfowlers know it doesn't.......but have no proof, NE are willing to accept!..........NE won't even listen, to them wildfowlers are guilty as NE allege and are serving the sentence they have imposed......and it will remain so until we prove otherwise!.. Guilty until proven innocent!.....how is that just? Edited May 3, 2019 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 I'd imagine the reporter he spoke to would be able to confirm or deny what had been said - seems very fishy that his account has not been sought - or has been got but not published. Wondering if we have not heard about it because he would disclose the full content of the discussion - which might not be in the public (or government) interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 (edited) the only way he can be done ..is to bring the cops in for a criminal investigation..and it will go to court....and gav's brief will call to the stand miss moneypenny ...007 Q...M....bodie&doyle....and they will have their ops tuned inside out infront of the jury ...with old fred and young will and mrs wiggins........... and the papers will be there...The daily tittle-tattle.....and Guttersnip international...........................and will hang out everybodies poo stained underware for the world to see.......... IT AINT GOIN' TO APPEN............and gav knows it Edited May 3, 2019 by ditchman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pushkin Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 Innocent until proven guilty eh? What about those folks in the past few years where no shred of evidence other than hearsay has been given by others that the "person was a bad un or looked like the type who would do it or the one ins Scotland where the chap has been sentenced to prison for the alleged murder of his ex girlfriend in her place of work in Edinburgh: Searches in woods in Argyll, and no evidence in his car etc. Something fishy about the innocence rule methinks?😎 I know it is one of the standbys we all hold dear but like everything else it is slowly being eroded.🤔 Pushkin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AULD YIN Posted May 3, 2019 Report Share Posted May 3, 2019 9 hours ago, wymberley said: Guilty until you prove yourself innocent!....... Police do it a lot with the public Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted May 4, 2019 Report Share Posted May 4, 2019 Quote "I swear on my children's lives that I am innocent. She has got the wrong person and the person who did leak this is still out there"...........Gavin Williamson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted May 4, 2019 Report Share Posted May 4, 2019 it has now been released by the met............"the information that was released...does not warrant a criminal investigation".................the wording was a little different, which i believe referenced williamson...... so it is fine to release info from a closed security meeting ...providing its not important enough dont make me larf.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munzy Posted May 4, 2019 Report Share Posted May 4, 2019 1 hour ago, ditchman said: it has now been released by the met............"the information that was released...does not warrant a criminal investigation".................the wording was a little different, which i believe referenced williamson...... so it is fine to release info from a closed security meeting ...providing its not important enough dont make me larf.. Sounds like they found the needed sweet spot between May being able to sack him and “plug the embarrassing leak” and there being grounds for the police to step in, investigate and expose the fact that the leak was from elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted May 4, 2019 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2019 Definitely a stitch up and a pretty clumsy one at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted May 4, 2019 Report Share Posted May 4, 2019 46 minutes ago, Walker570 said: Definitely a stitch up and a pretty clumsy one at that. i dont think it is a stitch up................i really believe it was him................there is something about him that gives me the eeebbee-jeeebees............if he is innocent i will hold my hands up and apologise............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted May 4, 2019 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2019 Williamson and Mark Sedwill had apparently had 'words' and were not on good terms. Sedwill is a runner for May and was put in charge of the enquiry. Can't really call that an independant enquiry now, can we? In my view and the rest of the thinking world , May has made a serious mistake in this Chinese deal and there is no doubt she was in a hissing fit because the details had been revealed. I sincerely hope that an offical enquiry goes ahead and like you, if I am wrong then I will put my hands up. Having seen the double dealing lying performance of May in the last three years I still believe he has been stitched up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted May 4, 2019 Report Share Posted May 4, 2019 To be honest I don't think we will ever know the truth of the matter! but for him to make such an oath (as posted above) if it does, in the end, turn out to be him, how could anyone trust a single word he utters in the future? I personally would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt...…….politicians are used to lying, but surely no one could sink that low? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinfireman Posted May 5, 2019 Report Share Posted May 5, 2019 On 03/05/2019 at 13:02, ditchman said: i dont think she would have been stupid enough to sack him like that unless she had 100% sit'rep'...................released the report would further comprimise the secrets act........williamson knows this and he is calling her bluff i rekon............... No secrets were revealed! It,s her crony, Mark Sedwill who has railraoded Williamson. On 03/05/2019 at 13:51, ditchman said: he broke the secrets act.................when i signed it ..i was made very well aware of the consiquences if breached..........................when they all sit around a table and discuss world security with the services....they dont expect it to be in the papers the next day............as far as im concerned williamson should tried and if found that he has broken the act ,should be put away .................i believe it is 2-14 years.................... No, he did not! That is the crux of the matter! In this country, Innocent until Proven Guilty! On 03/05/2019 at 14:30, ditchman said: and that is exactly what williamson knows............................as i said before may would not have done that unless she was 100% sure...i dont like her ...but on that score i dont think she can be that stupid............... this is something (yet something else)...........that will rumble on and on........... She IS that stupid! She let her attack dog, Sedwiil carry out an "investigation" (Sedwill has had it in for Williamson for a long time.) Williamson should be PROVED to have done it, which has not happened! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinfireman Posted May 5, 2019 Report Share Posted May 5, 2019 On 04/05/2019 at 16:11, ditchman said: it has now been released by the met............"the information that was released...does not warrant a criminal investigation".................the wording was a little different, which i believe referenced williamson...... so it is fine to release info from a closed security meeting ...providing its not important enough dont make me larf.. This was done at May,s behest! She does not want Williamson to be proved innocent! On 04/05/2019 at 18:58, ditchman said: i dont think it is a stitch up................i really believe it was him................there is something about him that gives me the eeebbee-jeeebees............if he is innocent i will hold my hands up and apologise............ How will you prove it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.