Nick thinks the Huawei leak was in the 'public interest'

Nick thinks the Huawei leak was in the 'public interest'



Views:13711|Rating:4.37|View Time:10:5Minutes|Likes:104|Dislikes:15
News about Huawei’s potential involvement in building the UK’s 5G network was reportedly leaked from the National Security Council.

But Nick Ferrari argues the details were in the public interest as it “affects the security of everyone”.

But Michelle Dewberry thinks the National Security Council should be able to “maintain confidentiality”.

FOLLOW The Pledge on Twitter:

FOLLOW the debate show on Facebook:

SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more videos:

Follow us on Twitter: and

Like us on Facebook:

Follow us on Instagram:

For more content go to and download our apps:

Apple

Android

listen do you want to know a secret do you promise not to tell this is definitely on Her Majesty is not so Secret Service but the government might be about to sign off on a bid that allows a Chinese telecoms giant to effectively run much of our 5g network this is not so much communist Reds under the bed there'll be everywhere from our cars to kitchens and bathrooms to boot was courtesy of the most questionable of decisions by Prime Minister Theresa May there's been one hell of a who why we done it Rao / precisely who leaked details of a highly confidential National Security Council meeting that discuss this defense secretary Gavin Williamson even suffered his very own Skyfall he lost his job as a suspected culprit what a load of thunder balls this is a story of massive public interest that affects the security of every one of us we've a right to know and this was a case of journalists doing what journalists are put on earth to do put simply this was a license to spill the beans it wasn't such a serious topic I mean that was amazing you know there's a few angles to this special of course as a broadcaster I agree with you and it's vital that information like this gets to the public there's a clear public interest I think it meets any threshold when it comes to that test it's certainly in the public's interest to know if the Chinese state will have some form of advantage over the privacy of our lives especially considering what they're doing in China now some viewers may watch the black mirror a TV show there's an episode about so the social credit system where a totalitarian state uses social media to control the lives of its citizens and punish them for misbehavior and indeed that's what China is doing and so it's scary it's scary if China has a foothold in our tech and in our country and regarding I have to wonder what through resumes thinking as Prime Minister I was saying to you earlier I think you know the term lame-duck may not necessarily suffice because the way she's handled this the the way that she seems to be going against intelligence advice in making this decision I think it would be more appropriate to describe her as a drunk-driving doc I think that it is though there is a question about the Official Secrets Act and I think that though whoever leaked this probably did the country a favor they probably do need to be disciplined for another reason and that's the precedent of the Official Secrets Act let's get Michele let's get Michele and just to say Gavin Williamson of course denied that he's the source of the leak although he has paid for as I said with his job the key here Michele is of course cabinets leak they've always leaked this is probably the leakiest of all cabinets but this is the National Security Council where you would be allowed to think that you could discuss the most sensitive details so I still say it's in the national interest even though it's a national security do you I so a cabinet is one thing a colander is another and I am absolutely fed up with the politicians letting us down and betraying trusts not actually doing their job so if you are on the National Security Council you have to be able to maintain confidentiality it's just an absolute basic and a given because our safety is in your hands if you're on that committee so I think it's appalling that a leak of any nature would come from that particular committee I think if there is concerns ie you're getting into bed with someone that you shouldn't be getting into in this case this Chinese cooperation then you you confine it into that room you have your conversations you do your role you you you have your responsibilities and you push back in the confines of that environment and make your voice hello what if you lose well then that's a different question for a point further down the line and there should be some kind of policy and some kind of way of really of raising your concern as I'm fed up with Paula Paula Titian as running to the newspapers every five minutes is what it feels like in order to weather score points whether it's undermining and I think it's absolutely wrong and if we think if we look at the Official Secrets Act for a second yeah and look at this it's a criminal offence to obtain or publish any information from a serving or former member of the security and intelligence services or from certain categories of civil servants where that disclosure would be damaging there is no public interest of it so what I would say is this undermines to me the confidential nature of that committee and how freely people should be able to speak in those meetings without the fear of one of them running off to the nearest press I'm gonna come because your journey so I think I know where you are and I do want to hear it June I'm interested where you are in this yeah I'm gonna be very quick and then now you too Carol and I agree with you I completely accept Michele and magics point regarding the Official Secrets Act but I think we need to make allowances for whistleblowers and the question that we should be asking which is why I have no idea what to resumes thinking is would the reverse be possible look the Chinese allow us to install there 5g I mean I understand that Westminster Journalism is run by by leaks and off-the-record briefings I get bad but this is entirely different this was the leak from it from a national security and the problem here is that what's at stake is the capacity of the security services to get you know to give information in secret and for it to really John Williamson has got form filiz you know that when he's incoming he denies it here what he might deny but you know we were told last night and was on the news that that resume had compelling evidence might not be him it might be someone hid in his office but what I think I know for a fact and never even being a journalist and haven't I got this story I would have absolutely done it and been happy to have done it however does this stop me thinking that the cabinet minister who leaked it should not only be sacked but should be prosecuted because had a civil servant stomach don't notice it Kevin a minute okay others at the meeting but if there was a civil servant who done it he definitely will be prosecuted so why if it turns out to be Gavin Wilson why not him though it does behoove us to remember that many an abuse of human rights has been committed in the name of national security and whether that was a double raid on tanomo and other places especially uh behind the specter of national security being raised to silence people from critics criticizing what's being done in the name of our protection is constantly something that journalist I think do you security services have to be able to give a nice Haislip I already concede that the leaker should be punished but I do think there's a public interest in this knowledge as a non journalist can I ask you a question as a journalist so in this situation so if somebody's leaked from this you know highly confidential forum to a newspaper isn't there a law that obligates that newspaper to disclose the source ultimately the editor could as you when you read that note I mean the editor in the journals of all could face prosecution you have to weigh up two things you have to your defense which I think would whoever has leaked this I think you would be able to prove this is in the public interest and that actually that would allow newspapers believe it ought to hack to do whatever they like if it is in the public interest so that's the measure the other thing you have to do is national security now the government is able to serve what's called a d– notice which stops publication but i my question is so we need to understand who this leak is from the perspective of confidentiality now rather than wandering around doing investigations and all the rest of it isn't it just as simple as to reason we're going to the editor of this news my question alley isn't there a legality when it comes to something such as this the severity in a police state I don't think you can you can't hack for Public Interest because that's committing a criminal offense sorry yeah okay but you can go to you can take other measures that would allow you if you could receive somebody knows that you didn't receive their information source point on the source point I think there's another principle at stake here and that applies to lawyers as well Michelle you know if you're worried about intelligence officers having the confidence in the national security to be able to speak without their words being leaked you've got other systems that play lawyers need to be able to hear testimony from the suspect without being forced to reveal that testimony against attorney-client privilege journalists have a similar thing where if you if you break that taboo if you go into there and say you've got to give us your source the entire professional journey but don't you think don't you think that this is indicative of the government we have now this has never happened before ever to my knowledge anyway and and there's an identity that we have Teresa may we have a government charge where we have a load of ministers and politicians who think they can do whatever and she clearly she's lost control of her cabinet and just one quick point and and I'm not bringing this back to briggsie I promise I think you'll agree with me I do think that you know if we are looking to leave the EU then surely it makes sense for us to be giving these sorts of contracts to British companies so that we know we're creating jobs in this country so not just in terms of national security out of self-interest you were certainly drunk driving drunk that's what I'm just pleased it's taken this long for the B word to be mentioned fair play to cereza mayor by the way she's actually shown an element of leadership for once members of accurate quickly and firing someone but anyway coming up next on the pledge I'm saying we need to support all members of society

35 thoughts on “Nick thinks the Huawei leak was in the 'public interest'”

  1. Huawei is better and cheaper. There are no backdoors in Huawei infrastructure equipment. If there was it'd be 100% blatantly obvious for any system administrator to detect it. The US is scared to lose out on the 5G future.

  2. Huawei's potential involvement in building UK's future 5G network is supposedly to be carried out in secret without any public knowledge, now the cover is blown, the next question is how Theresa May going to control the damages?

  3. This was a secret meeting on a secret tour which nobody is supposed to know about. It means that there are men, and perhaps women, in this country walking around with eggs in their pockets, just on the off-chance of seeing the Prime Minister. Edward Heath the egg head.

  4. The alarming thing about this episode is not the FACT of the alleged leak but the SUBSTANCE of it, and hence the exposure, once again, of Teresa May's lack of sound judgement.

  5. Not sure I understand all this…?
    It's OK for U. S to spy on us via phones etc but NOT China? 🤷‍♀️ And 5G is uneccessarydangeeous regardless of who is installing it…. No????

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *