SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
British Prime Minister Theresa May is cracking down on unauthorized leaks by ministers and civil servants on her Brexit plans, a leaked memo to the Mail on Sunday newspaper said.
Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood has written to senior officials to tell them that May wants to "urgently tighten security processes" and that anyone found to have leaked sensitive information will be dismissed, according to the memo.
A spokeswoman for May said: "We don't comment on leaked documents."
In his letter dated Nov. 28, Heywood said: "Leaking is corrosive and undermines trust and good government."
"Anyone found to have leaked sensitive information will be dismissed even where there is no compromise of national security."
Source: Reuters
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
British PM May Cracks Down on Brexit Leaks
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift.
-- Shelley
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:22AM
The thing is without leaks we would have no idea the shenanigans they are doing. No leaks only means you think everything the gov does is above board and we are the good guys. This is not true by a long shot.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday December 05 2016, @07:42AM
Methinks you are confusing leaks with whistleblowers. Most leaks today aren't about wrongdoing, they are policy debates by proxy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 05 2016, @05:22PM
Methinks you are confusing leaks with whistleblowers.
And methinks, you aren't confusing them enough. Leaks, no matter their source are a window into what's going on in the higher levels of government. More often than not, that ends up being beneficial to democracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:38PM
What is the difference between a leaker and a whistleblower? I would suggest that "wrongdoing" itself is (particularly egregious) policy, so any whistleblowing is by definition a "policy debate by proxy."
Consider the following... what is the difference between:
1) worker disagrees with the use of a specific negotiation tactic: lying to an international partner about the willingness to compromise on tariff laws
2) worker disagrees with the use of a specific negotiation tactic: torturing a prisoner to get information
3) worker disagrees with the use of a specific negotiation tactic: misrepresenting to the public the financial status of a company to gain favor during a labor dispute
So how would you define apriori whether or not something is whistleblowing or whining?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday December 05 2016, @06:09PM
If you are exposing actual criminal activity, AFTER using the established internal controls, then it is legitimate whistleblowing. Otherwise not. Simple, really. And this article is about leaks about legal, perfectly normal internal discussion within the British government about how best to carry out the public's stated will to exit the EU. Do try to keep up with the actual discussion and stop projecting your fetish crush on Edward Snowden onto everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @09:19PM
What is the difference between a leaker and a whistleblower?
A leak may or may not be intentional, whistleblowing always is intentional. A leak may or may not be intended to uncover wrongdoing, whistleblowing is intended to uncover wrongdoing.
Is that clear enough? Basically whistleblowing is a subset of leaking.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:00PM
methinks you missed my point.
Whistleblowers and leakers from the outside look exactly the same to me. As people with things to hide will hide them.
You can be right about your argument. I see the point. However, from my POV there is 0 difference.
Take for example the recent TPP thing. From my POV it was a huge secrete document that would have affected me in many ways. Most certainly by creating DMCA 2.0 which our gov would have been required to do by law. Yet they wanted to pop up and say 'here you go and we have consciousness on it' with 0 input from everyone who it would really affect. If that had not been dropped on the internet the thing would have been rolling on and on. Yet it could have easily been leaked by someone who just disagreed on a particular point or by someone who did not like the thing at all and thought it was a bad thing. I can not tell the difference as effectively to me there is no difference.
We put lots of trust into our public figures. However, money and power corrupt people. Not in a Dr. Evil sort of way. More of a 'i know better than you' sort of snobby way. Their power buys them access to things normal people would never get. Their power gets them huge sums of cash and damn the people they stole it from.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 05 2016, @04:45PM
The thing is without leaks we would have no idea the shenanigans they are doing.
Excellent point. How else would we know that Peter Huiffman is adding his liquid to the risotto way to fast for the starches to develop properly!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:04PM
We also would not know that the Clinton Foundation basically took the money and ran from Hatti.