tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post2549892667178110126..comments2024-03-20T12:03:26.126+00:00Comments on Thin Pinstriped Line: Oh for the sound of silenceSir Humphreyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-39234799039006292962012-04-28T04:27:58.589+01:002012-04-28T04:27:58.589+01:00Let me place a few counter-thoughts on this table:...Let me place a few counter-thoughts on this table:<br /><br />It is true that permission to access classified information is trust and trust should not be easily betrayed.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the duty to protect classified information is but one thing entrusted to officers, and is subordinate to the more strategic, over-reaching trust from the British people: to provide the best possible defence for the UK.<br /><br />So, here's the situation. You genuinely believe that the conclusion of <b>The Process</b> is wrong. Given this, you can either have Blind Faith in the Process, and in the process betray the trust from the British people, OR you can betray the trust of the guy giving you the clearance.<br /><br />Is not the choice clear?<br /><br />Now, it might be one thing if the Process has always brought good results so some Blind Faith in it might be justified, but it arguably has not. This whole B/C debate (leaving aside whether F-35 will even make it) is reminiscent of the decision which led to the RN being forced to fight the Falklands with two tiny V/STOL carriers instead of a CATOBAR one, which almost certainly was a leading cause of rather horrible casualties to the British Fleet. <br /><br />Now, it looks like a re-run is happening.<br /><br />From a more strategic point of view, modern militaries rely on secrecy too much anyway. Every classified piece of information is actually a barrier to civilian control, but nevertheless we the public understand that some things must be concealed and thus entrust to the military the right to conceal things <b>when necessary</b>. The military betrays the Public's trust when it un-necessarily conceals.arkhangelskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15247250672432027166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-65201866805371962472012-04-23T20:09:37.211+01:002012-04-23T20:09:37.211+01:00Can't say I've ever expected to see the wo...Can't say I've ever expected to see the word 'superbly' and Lewis Page's name in the same sentence. :-D<br /><br />I've no time for people who leak things to further their own agendas. As CS we've all been in a position at one time or another when we have had access to documents that were restricted to some degree and were trusted with them.<br /><br /> Now the person who leaked it certainly broke the OSA (though I'll believe a prosecution when I see one), but I wonder if the Torygraph also broke the ODA by publishing?<br /><br /> I do have to wonder where the leak did originate from. A Civil Servant, service officer, contractor, or a SPAD in the SecState's officer? Who knows?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-8251157890406276622012-04-22T21:26:56.282+01:002012-04-22T21:26:56.282+01:00Come on, Humphrey, this F35 nonsense is pure RN vs...Come on, Humphrey, this F35 nonsense is pure RN vs RAF survival instinct gone mad (well, madder than usual). Think Defence and Lewis Page at The Register have covered this superbly so I don't need to explain save to say that it's The Boy David who's the decider with all that implies for getting it "wrong". Someone having a leak in the circumstances is not only likely but inevitable and it probably wasn't a junior rank - they still haven't found out who leaked Fox's letter to the PM before SDSR, have they? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/29/fox-police-mod-officials-leakAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com