Discussion:
'Extraordinary secrecy' in Whitehall is crippling Brexit plans
(too old to reply)
MM
2018-06-10 09:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government is
blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a comprehensive
study of Whitehall.

"Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of the
most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of secured
computers that can only be accessed by officials with very high
security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the documents
under wraps.

"Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going 'well
beyond' those containing sensitive details of the government’s EU
negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents are kept
locked away, largely inaccessible to civil service teams that need to
see them."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank

Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.

MM
Norman Wells
2018-06-10 10:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government is
> blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a comprehensive
> study of Whitehall.
>
> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of the
> most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of secured
> computers that can only be accessed by officials with very high
> security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the documents
> under wraps.
>
> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going 'well
> beyond' those containing sensitive details of the government’s EU
> negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents are kept
> locked away, largely inaccessible to civil service teams that need to
> see them."
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>
> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.

It's up to the government what it makes available and what it doesn't.
Just because some are upset because they can't see everything they want
to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to change.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-10 12:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
> > "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government is
> > blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a comprehensive
> > study of Whitehall.
> >
> > "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
> > reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of the
> > most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of secured
> > computers that can only be accessed by officials with very high
> > security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the documents
> > under wraps.
> >
> > "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going 'well
> > beyond' those containing sensitive details of the government’s EU
> > negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents are kept
> > locked away, largely inaccessible to civil service teams that need to
> > see them."
> > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
> >
> > Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>
> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it doesn't.
> Just because some are upset because they can't see everything they want
> to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to change.

No it is up to parliament.

Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.

This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and never be even half as good as what we have now.
Norman Wells
2018-06-10 16:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government is
>>> blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a comprehensive
>>> study of Whitehall.
>>>
>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of the
>>> most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of secured
>>> computers that can only be accessed by officials with very high
>>> security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the documents
>>> under wraps.
>>>
>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going 'well
>>> beyond' those containing sensitive details of the government’s EU
>>> negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents are kept
>>> locked away, largely inaccessible to civil service teams that need to
>>> see them."
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>
>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>
>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it doesn't.
>> Just because some are upset because they can't see everything they want
>> to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to change.
>
> No it is up to parliament.
>
> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.

So, it's not always up to Parliament at all. The government effectively
decides what it will release and what it won't.

> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and never be even half as good as what we have now.

Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to see what
they want to see, but actually have no right to see it. You're the
same. You just want to see it because you believe it will lead the
government into self-incrimination.

Too bad if they don't go along with it.
pamela
2018-06-10 22:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17:00 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside
>>>> government is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit,
>>>> according to a comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>
>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of
>>>> the most senior civil servants. The installation of a network
>>>> of secured computers that can only be accessed by officials
>>>> with very high security clearance is also being accelerated, to
>>>> keep the documents under wraps.
>>>>
>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
>>>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
>>>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and
>>>> guidance documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible
>>>> to civil service teams that need to see them."
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-
secre
>>>> cy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>
>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>
>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it
>>> doesn't. Just because some are upset because they can't see
>>> everything they want to (including presumably the Guardian)
>>> that's no reason to change.
>>
>> No it is up to parliament.
>>
>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.
>
> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all. The government
> effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.

The government is not above the law and the Freedom of Information
Act applies. If you read the post above, the government is
withholding non-sensitive information.

>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want
>> any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate
>> weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage
>> trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with
>> countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and
>> never be even half as good as what we have now.
>
> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to
> see what they want to see, but actually have no right to see it.

Under FOI all documents are available other than those which fall
into various exemptions. It's called open government.

> You're the same. You just want to see it because you believe it
> will lead the government into self-incrimination.

If the government has screwed up then the public should be told.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 07:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/06/2018 23:08, pamela wrote:
> On 17:00 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside
>>>>> government is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit,
>>>>> according to a comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>>>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of
>>>>> the most senior civil servants. The installation of a network
>>>>> of secured computers that can only be accessed by officials
>>>>> with very high security clearance is also being accelerated, to
>>>>> keep the documents under wraps.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
>>>>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
>>>>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and
>>>>> guidance documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible
>>>>> to civil service teams that need to see them."
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-
> secre
>>>>> cy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>
>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it
>>>> doesn't. Just because some are upset because they can't see
>>>> everything they want to (including presumably the Guardian)
>>>> that's no reason to change.
>>>
>>> No it is up to parliament.
>>>
>>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.
>>
>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all. The government
>> effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.
>
> The government is not above the law and the Freedom of Information
> Act applies. If you read the post above, the government is
> withholding non-sensitive information.

Then put in a request to see it. Tell us when you have. And don't
forget to tell us the reason it was rejected.

Off you go.

>>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want
>>> any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate
>>> weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage
>>> trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with
>>> countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and
>>> never be even half as good as what we have now.
>>
>> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to
>> see what they want to see, but actually have no right to see it.
>
> Under FOI all documents are available other than those which fall
> into various exemptions. It's called open government.
>
>> You're the same. You just want to see it because you believe it
>> will lead the government into self-incrimination.
>
> If the government has screwed up then the public should be told.

You're like a child screaming and crying because it's been denied
something. It's very unbecoming.
pamela
2018-06-11 14:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08:28 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 10/06/2018 23:08, pamela wrote:
>> On 17:00 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
>>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside
>>>>>> government is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit,
>>>>>> according to a comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in
>>>>>> special reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the
>>>>>> offices of the most senior civil servants. The installation
>>>>>> of a network of secured computers that can only be accessed
>>>>>> by officials with very high security clearance is also being
>>>>>> accelerated, to keep the documents under wraps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
>>>>>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
>>>>>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and
>>>>>> guidance documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible
>>>>>> to civil service teams that need to see them."
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-
>> secre
>>>>>> cy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it
>>>>> doesn't. Just because some are upset because they can't see
>>>>> everything they want to (including presumably the Guardian)
>>>>> that's no reason to change.
>>>>
>>>> No it is up to parliament.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded
>>>> secrets.
>>>
>>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all. The government
>>> effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.
>>
>> The government is not above the law and the Freedom of
>> Information Act applies. If you read the post above, the
>> government is withholding non-sensitive information.
>
> Then put in a request to see it. Tell us when you have. And
> don't forget to tell us the reason it was rejected.

Norman, you may be experiencing memory troubles again and don't
recall what you wrote. Your error is you didn't know the public has
right to this information. You wrote this:

"So, it's not always up to Parliament at all. The government
effectively decides what it will release and what it won't."

FOI has been discussed here several times before. Don't you
remember?

>>>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want
>>>> any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate
>>>> weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage
>>>> trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with
>>>> countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and
>>>> never be even half as good as what we have now.
>>>
>>> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to
>>> see what they want to see, but actually have no right to see it.
>>
>> Under FOI all documents are available other than those which fall
>> into various exemptions. It's called open government.
>>
>>> You're the same. You just want to see it because you believe it
>>> will lead the government into self-incrimination.
>>
>> If the government has screwed up then the public should be told.
>
> You're like a child screaming and crying because it's been denied
> something. It's very unbecoming.

That's one way of fobbing off an FOI inquiry especially as it may
reveal information which embarasses all those in support of Brexit.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 14:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/06/2018 15:23, pamela wrote:
> On 08:28 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2018 23:08, pamela wrote:
>>> On 17:00 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
>>>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside
>>>>>>> government is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit,
>>>>>>> according to a comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in
>>>>>>> special reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the
>>>>>>> offices of the most senior civil servants. The installation
>>>>>>> of a network of secured computers that can only be accessed
>>>>>>> by officials with very high security clearance is also being
>>>>>>> accelerated, to keep the documents under wraps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
>>>>>>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
>>>>>>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and
>>>>>>> guidance documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible
>>>>>>> to civil service teams that need to see them."
>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-
>>> secre
>>>>>>> cy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it
>>>>>> doesn't. Just because some are upset because they can't see
>>>>>> everything they want to (including presumably the Guardian)
>>>>>> that's no reason to change.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it is up to parliament.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded
>>>>> secrets.
>>>>
>>>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all. The government
>>>> effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.
>>>
>>> The government is not above the law and the Freedom of
>>> Information Act applies. If you read the post above, the
>>> government is withholding non-sensitive information.
>>
>> Then put in a request to see it. Tell us when you have. And
>> don't forget to tell us the reason it was rejected.
>
> Norman, you may be experiencing memory troubles again and don't
> recall what you wrote. Your error is you didn't know the public has
> right to this information. You wrote this:
>
> "So, it's not always up to Parliament at all. The government
> effectively decides what it will release and what it won't."
>
> FOI has been discussed here several times before. Don't you
> remember?

Then there's nothing stopping you. Put in a request to see it. Tell us
when you have. And don't forget to tell us the reason it was rejected.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-11 15:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, 10 June 2018 17:00:02 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:

SNIP

> >>>
> >>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.

Lots of embarrassing things. Disclosure of real secrets by contrast causes insecurity and death.

> >>
> >> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it doesn't.
> >> Just because some are upset because they can't see everything they want
> >> to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to change.
> >
> > No it is up to parliament.
> >
> > Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.
>
> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all.

Yes it is - Defence of the Realm Act, Official Secrets Act et al.

> The government effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.

Usually civil servants, but this level of secrecy is normally reserved for nuclear installations - (Winfrith, Aldermaston, ) and operational control - (HMS Warrior in Northwood - oops!)


>
> > This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and never be even half as good as what we have now.
>
> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to see what
> they want to see, but actually have no right to see it. You're the
> same. You just want to see it because you believe it will lead the
> government into self-incrimination.
>
> Too bad if they don't go along with it.

It is a shame - I agree - and shameful.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 17:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/06/2018 16:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 17:00:02 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>
> Lots of embarrassing things. Disclosure of real secrets by contrast causes insecurity and death.
>
>>>>
>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it doesn't.
>>>> Just because some are upset because they can't see everything they want
>>>> to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to change.
>>>
>>> No it is up to parliament.
>>>
>>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.
>>
>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all.
>
> Yes it is - Defence of the Realm Act, Official Secrets Act et al.
>
>> The government effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.
>
> Usually civil servants, but this level of secrecy is normally reserved for nuclear installations - (Winfrith, Aldermaston, ) and operational control - (HMS Warrior in Northwood - oops!)
>
>>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and never be even half as good as what we have now.
>>
>> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to see what
>> they want to see, but actually have no right to see it. You're the
>> same. You just want to see it because you believe it will lead the
>> government into self-incrimination.
>>
>> Too bad if they don't go along with it.
>
> It is a shame - I agree - and shameful.

It's open to you to put in a freedom of information request if you want.
Why don't you?
pamela
2018-06-11 18:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18:31 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 11/06/2018 16:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 17:00:02 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>
>> Lots of embarrassing things. Disclosure of real secrets by
>> contrast causes insecurity and death.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it
>>>>> doesn't. Just because some are upset because they can't see
>>>>> everything they want to (including presumably the Guardian)
>>>>> that's no reason to change.
>>>>
>>>> No it is up to parliament.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded
>>>> secrets.
>>>
>>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all.
>>
>> Yes it is - Defence of the Realm Act, Official Secrets Act et al.
>>
>>> The government effectively decides what it will release and what
>>> it won't.
>>
>> Usually civil servants, but this level of secrecy is normally
>> reserved for nuclear installations - (Winfrith, Aldermaston, )
>> and operational control - (HMS Warrior in Northwood - oops!)
>>
>>>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want
>>>> any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate
>>>> weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage
>>>> trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with
>>>> countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and
>>>> never be even half as good as what we have now.
>>>
>>> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to
>>> see what they want to see, but actually have no right to see it.
>>> You're the same. You just want to see it because you believe
>>> it will lead the government into self-incrimination.
>>>
>>> Too bad if they don't go along with it.
>>
>> It is a shame - I agree - and shameful.
>
> It's open to you to put in a freedom of information request if you
> want. Why don't you?

Why should Mark put in a Freedom of Information request when someone
else wants the information and is being met by excessive secrecy
from the government? What does Mark have to do with it?
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 21:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/06/2018 19:38, pamela wrote:
> On 18:31 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2018 16:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 17:00:02 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>
>>> Lots of embarrassing things. Disclosure of real secrets by
>>> contrast causes insecurity and death.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it
>>>>>> doesn't. Just because some are upset because they can't see
>>>>>> everything they want to (including presumably the Guardian)
>>>>>> that's no reason to change.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it is up to parliament.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded
>>>>> secrets.
>>>>
>>>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all.
>>>
>>> Yes it is - Defence of the Realm Act, Official Secrets Act et al.
>>>
>>>> The government effectively decides what it will release and what
>>>> it won't.
>>>
>>> Usually civil servants, but this level of secrecy is normally
>>> reserved for nuclear installations - (Winfrith, Aldermaston, )
>>> and operational control - (HMS Warrior in Northwood - oops!)
>>>
>>>>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want
>>>>> any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate
>>>>> weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage
>>>>> trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with
>>>>> countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and
>>>>> never be even half as good as what we have now.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to
>>>> see what they want to see, but actually have no right to see it.
>>>> You're the same. You just want to see it because you believe
>>>> it will lead the government into self-incrimination.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad if they don't go along with it.
>>>
>>> It is a shame - I agree - and shameful.
>>
>> It's open to you to put in a freedom of information request if you
>> want. Why don't you?
>
> Why should Mark put in a Freedom of Information request when someone
> else wants the information and is being met by excessive secrecy
> from the government? What does Mark have to do with it?

If you're interested, you can. If you're not, you needn't. It's up to
you. But please don't affect synthetic concern for others when even
they won't do anything to help themselves. That's just playing "Ain't
it awful".
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-12 10:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 11 June 2018 22:43:51 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/06/2018 19:38, pamela wrote:
> > On 18:31 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/06/2018 16:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 17:00:02 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> >>>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> >>>
> >>> SNIP
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
> >>>
> >>> Lots of embarrassing things. Disclosure of real secrets by
> >>> contrast causes insecurity and death.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it
> >>>>>> doesn't. Just because some are upset because they can't see
> >>>>>> everything they want to (including presumably the Guardian)
> >>>>>> that's no reason to change.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No it is up to parliament.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded
> >>>>> secrets.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all.
> >>>
> >>> Yes it is - Defence of the Realm Act, Official Secrets Act et al.
> >>>
> >>>> The government effectively decides what it will release and what
> >>>> it won't.
> >>>
> >>> Usually civil servants, but this level of secrecy is normally
> >>> reserved for nuclear installations - (Winfrith, Aldermaston, )
> >>> and operational control - (HMS Warrior in Northwood - oops!)
> >>>
> >>>>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want
> >>>>> any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate
> >>>>> weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage
> >>>>> trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with
> >>>>> countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and
> >>>>> never be even half as good as what we have now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to
> >>>> see what they want to see, but actually have no right to see it.
> >>>> You're the same. You just want to see it because you believe
> >>>> it will lead the government into self-incrimination.
> >>>>
> >>>> Too bad if they don't go along with it.
> >>>
> >>> It is a shame - I agree - and shameful.
> >>
> >> It's open to you to put in a freedom of information request if you
> >> want. Why don't you?
> >
> > Why should Mark put in a Freedom of Information request when someone
> > else wants the information and is being met by excessive secrecy
> > from the government? What does Mark have to do with it?
>
> If you're interested, you can. If you're not, you needn't. It's up to
> you. But please don't affect synthetic concern for others when even
> they won't do anything to help themselves. That's just playing "Ain't
> it awful".

If members of parliament and even Privy Councillors* are being denied access it would be extremely naive to suppose they might release it to a mere member of the public.

* those entitled by HM to be privy to the crown's secrets
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-12 10:33:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 11 June 2018 18:31:28 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/06/2018 16:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > On Sunday, 10 June 2018 17:00:02 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> >> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
> >
> > Lots of embarrassing things. Disclosure of real secrets by contrast causes insecurity and death.
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it doesn't.
> >>>> Just because some are upset because they can't see everything they want
> >>>> to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to change.
> >>>
> >>> No it is up to parliament.
> >>>
> >>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.
> >>
> >> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all.
> >
> > Yes it is - Defence of the Realm Act, Official Secrets Act et al.
> >
> >> The government effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.
> >
> > Usually civil servants, but this level of secrecy is normally reserved for nuclear installations - (Winfrith, Aldermaston, ) and operational control - (HMS Warrior in Northwood - oops!)
> >
> >>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want any leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate weakness of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage trade and thereby the economy and replacement deals with countries in other continents will take years to negotiate and never be even half as good as what we have now.
> >>
> >> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to see what
> >> they want to see, but actually have no right to see it. You're the
> >> same. You just want to see it because you believe it will lead the
> >> government into self-incrimination.
> >>
> >> Too bad if they don't go along with it.
> >
> > It is a shame - I agree - and shameful.
>
> It's open to you to put in a freedom of information request if you want.
> Why don't you?

1. It will leak anyway.
2. They will probably decline.
3. or delay until it is too late or published anyway.
4. all this cloak and dagger stuff makes the government look underhand over Brexit (because it is), why should I help them dispel the bad smell about the whole process?
5. I am sure there is someone somewhere whose day job it is to generate these (journalist, political researcher etc.).
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-06-11 18:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:00:00 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am> wrot=
e:

> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government is=

>>>> blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a comprehens=
ive
>>>> study of Whitehall.
>>>>
>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of the=

>>>> most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of secure=
d
>>>> computers that can only be accessed by officials with very high
>>>> security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the documents=

>>>> under wraps.
>>>>
>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going 'well=

>>>> beyond' those containing sensitive details of the government=E2=80=99=
s EU
>>>> negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents are kept
>>>> locked away, largely inaccessible to civil service teams that need =
to
>>>> see them."
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-=
cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>
>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>
>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it doesn'=
t.
>>> Just because some are upset because they can't see everything they w=
ant
>>> to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to change.
>> No it is up to parliament.
>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.
>
> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all. The government effective=
ly =

> decides what it will release and what it won't.
>
>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want any =

>> leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate weakness of=
=

>> our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage trade and thereby=
=

>> the economy and replacement deals with countries in other continents =
=

>> will take years to negotiate and never be even half as good as what w=
e =

>> have now.
>
> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to see wh=
at =

> they want to see, but actually have no right to see it. You're the =

> same. You just want to see it because you believe it will lead the =

> government into self-incrimination.
>
> Too bad if they don't go along with it.

Why do you think it's ok for your government to do things without you =

knowing?
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 18:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/06/2018 19:06, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:00:00 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells  wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government is
>>>>> blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a comprehensive
>>>>> study of Whitehall.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>>>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of the
>>>>> most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of secured
>>>>> computers that can only be accessed by officials with very high
>>>>> security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the documents
>>>>> under wraps.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going 'well
>>>>> beyond' those containing sensitive details of the government’s EU
>>>>> negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents are kept
>>>>> locked away, largely inaccessible to civil service teams that need to
>>>>> see them."
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>
>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it doesn't.
>>>> Just because some are upset because they can't see everything they want
>>>> to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to change.
>>>  No it is up to parliament.
>>>  Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.
>>
>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all.  The government
>> effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.
>>
>>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want any
>>> leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate weakness of
>>> our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage trade and thereby
>>> the economy and replacement deals with countries in other continents
>>> will take years to negotiate and never be even half as good as what
>>> we have now.
>>
>> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to see
>> what they want to see, but actually have no right to see it.  You're
>> the same.  You just want to see it because you believe it will lead
>> the government into self-incrimination.
>>
>> Too bad if they don't go along with it.
>
> Why do you think it's ok for your government to do things without you
> knowing?

There are some secrets it needs to keep. There are some that would
damage its negotiating position if they were known by the other side.
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-06-11 18:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:27:05 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am> wrot=
e:

> On 11/06/2018 19:06, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:00:00 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am> =

>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
>>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government =
is
>>>>>> blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a =

>>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>> study of Whitehall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>>>>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of t=
he
>>>>>> most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of secu=
red
>>>>>> computers that can only be accessed by officials with very high
>>>>>> security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the documen=
ts
>>>>>> under wraps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going 'we=
ll
>>>>>> beyond' those containing sensitive details of the government=E2=80=
=99s EU
>>>>>> negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents are kept=

>>>>>> locked away, largely inaccessible to civil service teams that nee=
d =

>>>>>> to
>>>>>> see them."
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrec=
y-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank =

>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it =

>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>> Just because some are upset because they can't see everything they=
=

>>>>> want
>>>>> to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to change.=

>>>> No it is up to parliament.
>>>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.
>>>
>>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all. The government =

>>> effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.
>>>
>>>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want any=
=

>>>> leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate weakness =
of =

>>>> our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage trade and there=
by =

>>>> the economy and replacement deals with countries in other continent=
s =

>>>> will take years to negotiate and never be even half as good as what=
=

>>>> we have now.
>>>
>>> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to see =
=

>>> what they want to see, but actually have no right to see it. You're=
=

>>> the same. You just want to see it because you believe it will lead =
=

>>> the government into self-incrimination.
>>>
>>> Too bad if they don't go along with it.
>> Why do you think it's ok for your government to do things without yo=
u =

>> knowing?
>
> There are some secrets it needs to keep. There are some that would =

> damage its negotiating position if they were known by the other side.

I disagree entirely. Any secrets are as bad as lies.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 18:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/06/2018 19:35, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:27:05 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2018 19:06, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:00:00 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells  wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
>>>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government is
>>>>>>> blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a
>>>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>>> study of Whitehall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>>>>>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of the
>>>>>>> most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of secured
>>>>>>> computers that can only be accessed by officials with very high
>>>>>>> security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the documents
>>>>>>> under wraps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going 'well
>>>>>>> beyond' those containing sensitive details of the government’s EU
>>>>>>> negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents are kept
>>>>>>> locked away, largely inaccessible to civil service teams that
>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>> see them."
>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it
>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>> Just because some are upset because they can't see everything they
>>>>>> want
>>>>>> to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to change.
>>>>>  No it is up to parliament.
>>>>>  Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets.
>>>>
>>>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all.  The government
>>>> effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.
>>>>
>>>>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want any
>>>>> leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate weakness
>>>>> of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage trade and
>>>>> thereby the economy and replacement deals with countries in other
>>>>> continents will take years to negotiate and never be even half as
>>>>> good as what we have now.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to see
>>>> what they want to see, but actually have no right to see it.  You're
>>>> the same.  You just want to see it because you believe it will lead
>>>> the government into self-incrimination.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad if they don't go along with it.
>>>  Why do you think it's ok for your government to do things without
>>> you knowing?
>>
>> There are some secrets it needs to keep.  There are some that would
>> damage its negotiating position if they were known by the other side.
>
> I disagree entirely.  Any secrets are as bad as lies.

Too bad. You're wrong.
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-06-11 18:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:39:22 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am> wrot=
e:

> On 11/06/2018 19:35, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:27:05 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am> =

>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2018 19:06, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:00:00 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>=
=

>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/06/2018 13:35, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 11:26:01 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
>>>>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside governmen=
t =

>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a =

>>>>>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>>>> study of Whitehall.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special=

>>>>>>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of=
=

>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of =

>>>>>>>> secured
>>>>>>>> computers that can only be accessed by officials with very high=

>>>>>>>> security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the =

>>>>>>>> documents
>>>>>>>> under wraps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going =

>>>>>>>> 'well
>>>>>>>> beyond' those containing sensitive details of the government=E2=
=80=99s EU
>>>>>>>> negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents are ke=
pt
>>>>>>>> locked away, largely inaccessible to civil service teams that =

>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> see them."
>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secr=
ecy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank =

>>>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's up to the government what it makes available and what it =

>>>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>>>> Just because some are upset because they can't see everything th=
ey =

>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> to (including presumably the Guardian) that's no reason to chang=
e.
>>>>>> No it is up to parliament.
>>>>>> Obviously key defence details need to be closely guarded secrets=
.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, it's not always up to Parliament at all. The government =

>>>>> effectively decides what it will release and what it won't.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This nonsense is occurring because the government does not want a=
ny =

>>>>>> leaks about the massive disarray within it and the innate weaknes=
s =

>>>>>> of our position - leaving will inevitably badly damage trade and =
=

>>>>>> thereby the economy and replacement deals with countries in other=
=

>>>>>> continents will take years to negotiate and never be even half as=
=

>>>>>> good as what we have now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, it's all just whinging by those who haven't been allowed to se=
e =

>>>>> what they want to see, but actually have no right to see it. You'=
re =

>>>>> the same. You just want to see it because you believe it will lea=
d =

>>>>> the government into self-incrimination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad if they don't go along with it.
>>>> Why do you think it's ok for your government to do things without =
=

>>>> you knowing?
>>>
>>> There are some secrets it needs to keep. There are some that would =
=

>>> damage its negotiating position if they were known by the other side=
.
>> I disagree entirely. Any secrets are as bad as lies.
>
> Too bad. You're wrong.

No, you're wrong. You're siding with secrecy, spies, and all that James=
=

Bond shit that does not belong in the real world.
The Peeler
2018-06-11 19:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:39:22 +0100, Norman Wells, the notorious,
troll-feeding idiot, blathered again:

>> I disagree entirely.  Any secrets are as bad as lies.
>
> Too bad. You're wrong.

He's not wrong, you idiot! He's a TROLL! <tsk>
The Peeler
2018-06-11 19:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:27:05 +0100, Norman Wells, the notorious,
troll-feeding idiot, blabbered again:


>
> There are some secrets it needs to keep. There are some that would
> damage its negotiating position if they were known by the other side.

Is there not ONE stupid bait by the abnormal Scottish sow that you will NOT
take, you senile idiot? LOL
Fredxx
2018-06-10 10:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/06/2018 10:41, MM wrote:
> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government is
> blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a comprehensive
> study of Whitehall.
>
> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of the
> most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of secured
> computers that can only be accessed by officials with very high
> security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the documents
> under wraps.
>
> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going 'well
> beyond' those containing sensitive details of the government’s EU
> negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents are kept
> locked away, largely inaccessible to civil service teams that need to
> see them."
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>
> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.

One can say the same about MI5 and our Nuclear secrets.

Some Remoaners would prefer the EU negotiators to see our hand and sell
out this country.

For once, I believe this approach is best, and will lead to the best
outcome in spite of those trying their best to thwart the process.
pamela
2018-06-10 22:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:

> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government
> is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a
> comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>
> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of
> the most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of
> secured computers that can only be accessed by officials with very
> high security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the
> documents under wraps.
>
> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance
> documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible to civil
> service teams that need to see them."
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-
> cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>
> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>
> MM

David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he wouldn't
release the industry sector impact analyses. At first he even
claimed they didn't exist.

I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the public
should not be allowed to know what was being negotiated on their
behalf in case it helped the EU. We were supposed to compromise our
right to know in the name of something a minority of the electorate
voted for! What nonsense.

Brexiteers seem to have much to hide.
Norman Wells
2018-06-10 22:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
> On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
>
>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government
>> is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a
>> comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>
>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of
>> the most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of
>> secured computers that can only be accessed by officials with very
>> high security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the
>> documents under wraps.
>>
>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance
>> documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible to civil
>> service teams that need to see them."
>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-
>> cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>
>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>
>> MM
>
> David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he wouldn't
> release the industry sector impact analyses. At first he even
> claimed they didn't exist.
>
> I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the public
> should not be allowed to know what was being negotiated on their
> behalf in case it helped the EU. We were supposed to compromise our
> right to know

What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?

Where is that enshrined in law?

> in the name of something a minority of the electorate
> voted for! What nonsense.

Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral Commission, we
elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of 1,269,501.

> Brexiteers seem to have much to hide.

Negotiators do not reveal their hand. It's Negotiation 101.
pamela
2018-06-11 00:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 23:14 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
>> On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
>>
>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government
>>> is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a
>>> comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>
>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of
>>> the most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of
>>> secured computers that can only be accessed by officials with
>>> very high security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep
>>> the documents under wraps.
>>>
>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
>>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
>>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance
>>> documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible to civil
>>> service teams that need to see them."
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-
secrec
>>> y- cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>
>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>
>>> MM
>>
>> David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he
>> wouldn't release the industry sector impact analyses. At first
>> he even claimed they didn't exist.
>>
>> I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the public
>> should not be allowed to know what was being negotiated on their
>> behalf in case it helped the EU. We were supposed to compromise
>> our right to know
>
> What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?
> Where is that enshrined in law?

Freedom of Information Act 2000.

>> in the name of something a minority of the electorate voted for!
>> What nonsense.
>
> Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral Commission,
> we elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of 1,269,501.

17,410,742 voted Leave from an electorate of 46,500,001, which comes
to 37%. That is a minority of the electorate whch is exactly what I
said. I worte it in simple English.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 07:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/06/2018 01:22, pamela wrote:
> On 23:14 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
>>> On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government
>>>> is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a
>>>> comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>
>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of
>>>> the most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of
>>>> secured computers that can only be accessed by officials with
>>>> very high security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep
>>>> the documents under wraps.
>>>>
>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
>>>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
>>>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance
>>>> documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible to civil
>>>> service teams that need to see them."
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-
> secrec
>>>> y- cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>
>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>
>>>> MM
>>>
>>> David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he
>>> wouldn't release the industry sector impact analyses. At first
>>> he even claimed they didn't exist.
>>>
>>> I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the public
>>> should not be allowed to know what was being negotiated on their
>>> behalf in case it helped the EU. We were supposed to compromise
>>> our right to know
>>
>> What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?
>> Where is that enshrined in law?
>
> Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Which contains Sections 21 to 44 all about exceptions. You can put in a
request by all means, but it won't be accepted. One or more of those
exceptions is bound to be invoked.

>>> in the name of something a minority of the electorate voted for!
>>> What nonsense.
>>
>> Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral Commission,
>> we elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of 1,269,501.
>
> 17,410,742 voted Leave from an electorate of 46,500,001, which comes
> to 37%. That is a minority of the electorate whch is exactly what I
> said. I worte it in simple English.

Yawn, yawn.
pamela
2018-06-11 14:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08:25 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 11/06/2018 01:22, pamela wrote:
>> On 23:14 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside
>>>>> government is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit,
>>>>> according to a comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in
>>>>> special reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the
>>>>> offices of the most senior civil servants. The installation of
>>>>> a network of secured computers that can only be accessed by
>>>>> officials with very high security clearance is also being
>>>>> accelerated, to keep the documents under wraps.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
>>>>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
>>>>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and
>>>>> guidance documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible
>>>>> to civil service teams that need to see them."
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-
>> secrec
>>>>> y- cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>>
>>>>> MM
>>>>
>>>> David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he
>>>> wouldn't release the industry sector impact analyses. At first
>>>> he even claimed they didn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the
>>>> public should not be allowed to know what was being negotiated
>>>> on their behalf in case it helped the EU. We were supposed to
>>>> compromise our right to know
>>>
>>> What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?
>>> Where is that enshrined in law?
>>
>> Freedom of Information Act 2000.
>
> Which contains Sections 21 to 44 all about exceptions. You can
> put in a request by all means, but it won't be accepted. One or
> more of those exceptions is bound to be invoked.

The government is not above the law and unreasonable reliance on FOI
exceptions can be challenged. Ask Tony Blair.

>>>> in the name of something a minority of the electorate voted
>>>> for! What nonsense.
>>>
>>> Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral Commission,
>>> we elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of 1,269,501.
>>
>> 17,410,742 voted Leave from an electorate of 46,500,001, which
>> comes to 37%. That is a minority of the electorate whch is
>> exactly what I said. I wrote it in simple English.
>
> That really shows it is a minority who voted Brexit.

I know. I wrote it clearly enough.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 15:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/06/2018 15:25, pamela wrote:
> On 08:25 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2018 01:22, pamela wrote:
>>> On 23:14 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside
>>>>>> government is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit,
>>>>>> according to a comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in
>>>>>> special reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the
>>>>>> offices of the most senior civil servants. The installation of
>>>>>> a network of secured computers that can only be accessed by
>>>>>> officials with very high security clearance is also being
>>>>>> accelerated, to keep the documents under wraps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
>>>>>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
>>>>>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and
>>>>>> guidance documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible
>>>>>> to civil service teams that need to see them."
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-
>>> secrec
>>>>>> y- cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MM
>>>>>
>>>>> David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he
>>>>> wouldn't release the industry sector impact analyses. At first
>>>>> he even claimed they didn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the
>>>>> public should not be allowed to know what was being negotiated
>>>>> on their behalf in case it helped the EU. We were supposed to
>>>>> compromise our right to know
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?
>>>> Where is that enshrined in law?
>>>
>>> Freedom of Information Act 2000.
>>
>> Which contains Sections 21 to 44 all about exceptions. You can
>> put in a request by all means, but it won't be accepted. One or
>> more of those exceptions is bound to be invoked.
>
> The government is not above the law and unreasonable reliance on FOI
> exceptions can be challenged. Ask Tony Blair.

Then there's nothing to stop you putting in your own freedom of
information request. Are you going to or not? And if not, why not?

>>>>> in the name of something a minority of the electorate voted
>>>>> for! What nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral Commission,
>>>> we elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of 1,269,501.
>>>
>>> 17,410,742 voted Leave from an electorate of 46,500,001, which
>>> comes to 37%. That is a minority of the electorate whch is
>>> exactly what I said. I wrote it in simple English.
>>
>> That really shows it is a minority who voted Brexit.
>
> I know. I wrote it clearly enough.

But you're replying to something I didn't write, and which you must have
written yourself.

Very odd. Very sad.
pamela
2018-06-11 16:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16:05 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 11/06/2018 15:25, pamela wrote:
>> On 08:25 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2018 01:22, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 23:14 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside
>>>>>>> government is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit,
>>>>>>> according to a comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in
>>>>>>> special reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the
>>>>>>> offices of the most senior civil servants. The installation
>>>>>>> of a network of secured computers that can only be accessed
>>>>>>> by officials with very high security clearance is also being
>>>>>>> accelerated, to keep the documents under wraps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is
>>>>>>> going 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of
>>>>>>> the government’s EU negotiations. Even
>>>>>>> basic planning and guidance documents are kept locked away,
>>>>>>> largely inaccessible to civil service teams that need to see
>>>>>>> them."
>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-
>>>> secrec
>>>>>>> y- cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he
>>>>>> wouldn't release the industry sector impact analyses. At
>>>>>> first he even claimed they didn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the
>>>>>> public should not be allowed to know what was being
>>>>>> negotiated on their behalf in case it helped the EU. We were
>>>>>> supposed to compromise our right to know
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?
>>>>> Where is that enshrined in law?
>>>>
>>>> Freedom of Information Act 2000.
>>>
>>> Which contains Sections 21 to 44 all about exceptions. You can
>>> put in a request by all means, but it won't be accepted. One or
>>> more of those exceptions is bound to be invoked.
>>
>> The government is not above the law and unreasonable reliance on
>> FOI exceptions can be challenged. Ask Tony Blair.
>
> Then there's nothing to stop you putting in your own freedom of
> information request. Are you going to or not? And if not, why
> not?
>
>>>>>> in the name of something a minority of the electorate voted
>>>>>> for! What nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral
>>>>> Commission, we elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of
>>>>> 1,269,501.
>>>>
>>>> 17,410,742 voted Leave from an electorate of 46,500,001, which
>>>> comes to 37%. That is a minority of the electorate whch is
>>>> exactly what I said. I wrote it in simple English.
>>>
>>> That really shows it is a minority who voted Brexit.
>>
>> I know. I wrote it clearly enough.
>
> But you're replying to something I didn't write, and which you
> must have written yourself.
>
> Very odd. Very sad.

Nice attempt at playing to the gallery, Norman. Your rush to
belligerance has made you fall on your face again.

You incorrectly made the remark that Parliament will release what it
choose and we have to accept that. The truth is we the public have a
right enshrined in law to see what does not fall under FOI exceptions.
You forgot that in your headlong rush to make negative comments.

Now you try to change the discussion by advising I should make an FOI
application as if that has anything to do with Parliament withholding
nonsensitive information unreasonably.

Get a grip.
Not every discussion has to be a conflict.
Not every mistake you make has to be covered up.
Just act normal.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 17:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/06/2018 17:49, pamela wrote:
> On 16:05 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2018 15:25, pamela wrote:
>>> On 08:25 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/06/2018 01:22, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 23:14 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside
>>>>>>>> government is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit,
>>>>>>>> according to a comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in
>>>>>>>> special reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the
>>>>>>>> offices of the most senior civil servants. The installation
>>>>>>>> of a network of secured computers that can only be accessed
>>>>>>>> by officials with very high security clearance is also being
>>>>>>>> accelerated, to keep the documents under wraps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is
>>>>>>>> going 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of
>>>>>>>> the government’s EU negotiations. Even
>>>>>>>> basic planning and guidance documents are kept locked away,
>>>>>>>> largely inaccessible to civil service teams that need to see
>>>>>>>> them."
>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-
>>>>> secrec
>>>>>>>> y- cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he
>>>>>>> wouldn't release the industry sector impact analyses. At
>>>>>>> first he even claimed they didn't exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the
>>>>>>> public should not be allowed to know what was being
>>>>>>> negotiated on their behalf in case it helped the EU. We were
>>>>>>> supposed to compromise our right to know
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?
>>>>>> Where is that enshrined in law?
>>>>>
>>>>> Freedom of Information Act 2000.
>>>>
>>>> Which contains Sections 21 to 44 all about exceptions. You can
>>>> put in a request by all means, but it won't be accepted. One or
>>>> more of those exceptions is bound to be invoked.
>>>
>>> The government is not above the law and unreasonable reliance on
>>> FOI exceptions can be challenged. Ask Tony Blair.
>>
>> Then there's nothing to stop you putting in your own freedom of
>> information request. Are you going to or not? And if not, why
>> not?
>>
>>>>>>> in the name of something a minority of the electorate voted
>>>>>>> for! What nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral
>>>>>> Commission, we elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of
>>>>>> 1,269,501.
>>>>>
>>>>> 17,410,742 voted Leave from an electorate of 46,500,001, which
>>>>> comes to 37%. That is a minority of the electorate whch is
>>>>> exactly what I said. I wrote it in simple English.
>>>>
>>>> That really shows it is a minority who voted Brexit.
>>>
>>> I know. I wrote it clearly enough.
>>
>> But you're replying to something I didn't write, and which you
>> must have written yourself.
>>
>> Very odd. Very sad.
>
> Nice attempt at playing to the gallery, Norman.

True though, isn't it?

> Your rush to
> belligerance has made you fall on your face again.
>
> You incorrectly made the remark that Parliament will release what it
> choose and we have to accept that.

No I didn't.

> The truth is we the public have a
> right enshrined in law to see what does not fall under FOI exceptions.
> You forgot that in your headlong rush to make negative comments.

No I didn't. I suggested you used it, but that your request would be
denied because of those exceptions.

> Now you try to change the discussion by advising I should make an FOI
> application as if that has anything to do with Parliament withholding
> nonsensitive information unreasonably.

It's not changing the discussion at all. You want information. You
have to ask for it. We won't know if the government is witholding it
unreasonably until you tell us the response.
pamela
2018-06-11 18:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18:51 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 11/06/2018 17:49, pamela wrote:
>> On 16:05 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2018 15:25, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 08:25 11 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/06/2018 01:22, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 23:14 10 Jun 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside
>>>>>>>>> government is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit,
>>>>>>>>> according to a comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in
>>>>>>>>> special reading rooms, while some papers are confined to
>>>>>>>>> the offices of the most senior civil servants. The
>>>>>>>>> installation of a network of secured computers that can
>>>>>>>>> only be accessed by officials with very high security
>>>>>>>>> clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the documents
>>>>>>>>> under wraps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is
>>>>>>>>> going 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of
>>>>>>>>> the governmentÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€şÂ¢s EU
>>>>>>>>> negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance documents
>>>>>>>>> are kept locked away, largely inaccessible to civil
>>>>>>>>> service teams that need to see them."
>>>>>>>>>
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-

>>>>>> secrec
>>>>>>>>> y- cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he
>>>>>>>> wouldn't release the industry sector impact analyses. At
>>>>>>>> first he even claimed they didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the
>>>>>>>> public should not be allowed to know what was being
>>>>>>>> negotiated on their behalf in case it helped the EU. We
>>>>>>>> were supposed to compromise our right to know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?
>>>>>>> Where is that enshrined in law?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Freedom of Information Act 2000.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which contains Sections 21 to 44 all about exceptions. You
>>>>> can put in a request by all means, but it won't be accepted.
>>>>> One or more of those exceptions is bound to be invoked.
>>>>
>>>> The government is not above the law and unreasonable reliance
>>>> on FOI exceptions can be challenged. Ask Tony Blair.
>>>
>>> Then there's nothing to stop you putting in your own freedom of
>>> information request. Are you going to or not? And if not, why
>>> not?
>>>
>>>>>>>> in the name of something a minority of the electorate voted
>>>>>>>> for! What nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral
>>>>>>> Commission, we elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of
>>>>>>> 1,269,501.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 17,410,742 voted Leave from an electorate of 46,500,001,
>>>>>> which comes to 37%. That is a minority of the electorate
>>>>>> whch is exactly what I said. I wrote it in simple English.
>>>>>
>>>>> That really shows it is a minority who voted Brexit.
>>>>
>>>> I know. I wrote it clearly enough.
>>>
>>> But you're replying to something I didn't write, and which you
>>> must have written yourself.
>>>
>>> Very odd. Very sad.
>>
>> Nice attempt at playing to the gallery, Norman.
>
> True though, isn't it?
>
>> Your rush to
>> belligerance has made you fall on your face again.
>>
>> You incorrectly made the remark that Parliament will release what
>> it choose and we have to accept that.
>
> No I didn't.
>
>> The truth is we the public have a
>> right enshrined in law to see what does not fall under FOI
>> exceptions. You forgot that in your headlong rush to make
>> negative comments.
>
> No I didn't. I suggested you used it, but that your request would
> be denied because of those exceptions.
>
>> Now you try to change the discussion by advising I should make an
>> FOI application as if that has anything to do with Parliament
>> withholding nonsensitive information unreasonably.
>
> It's not changing the discussion at all. You want information.
> You have to ask for it. We won't know if the government is
> witholding it unreasonably until you tell us the response.

You really don't remember how this thread has gone, do you? You say
I want information but I have never asked for information.

I said the governement should provide it to those who ask for it.
You thought no one had a right to see it but overlooked the Freedom
Of Information Act. When I reminded you, you started to talk about
me making an application, even though I have no desire to see the
information. Others have asked and they are the interested party.

Then you don't understand what constitutes a minority of the
electorate and think 37% is a majority. You really are a duffer.

I'm sorry to repeat myself but you need to get your concentration
and focus checked and you have probably forgotten that you have been
advised to do this before.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-11 16:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, 10 June 2018 23:14:25 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
> > On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
> >
> >> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government
> >> is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a
> >> comprehensive study of Whitehall.
> >>
> >> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
> >> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of
> >> the most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of
> >> secured computers that can only be accessed by officials with very
> >> high security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the
> >> documents under wraps.
> >>
> >> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
> >> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
> >> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance
> >> documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible to civil
> >> service teams that need to see them."
> >> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-
> >> cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
> >>
> >> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
> >>
> >> MM
> >
> > David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he wouldn't
> > release the industry sector impact analyses. At first he even
> > claimed they didn't exist.
> >
> > I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the public
> > should not be allowed to know what was being negotiated on their
> > behalf in case it helped the EU. We were supposed to compromise our
> > right to know
>
> What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?
>
> Where is that enshrined in law?

Here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36

>
> > in the name of something a minority of the electorate
> > voted for! What nonsense.
>
> Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral Commission, we
> elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of 1,269,501.

Wafer thin majority of those who voted, clear minority of those who could, however it is those who vote who decided the issue.

>
> > Brexiteers seem to have much to hide.
>
> Negotiators do not reveal their hand. It's Negotiation 101.

Especially if it is seven high! They just bluff, which is what the government is doing to the electorate.

Still as predicted the chickens are starting to come home to roost now and maybe the electorate will fully twig they have been conned when we tip into recession again.
Norman Wells
2018-06-11 17:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/06/2018 17:05, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 June 2018 23:14:25 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
>>> On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government
>>>> is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a
>>>> comprehensive study of Whitehall.
>>>>
>>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
>>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of
>>>> the most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of
>>>> secured computers that can only be accessed by officials with very
>>>> high security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the
>>>> documents under wraps.
>>>>
>>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
>>>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
>>>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance
>>>> documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible to civil
>>>> service teams that need to see them."
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-
>>>> cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
>>>>
>>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
>>>>
>>>> MM
>>>
>>> David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he wouldn't
>>> release the industry sector impact analyses. At first he even
>>> claimed they didn't exist.
>>>
>>> I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the public
>>> should not be allowed to know what was being negotiated on their
>>> behalf in case it helped the EU. We were supposed to compromise our
>>> right to know
>>
>> What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?
>>
>> Where is that enshrined in law?
>
> Here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36
>
>>
>>> in the name of something a minority of the electorate
>>> voted for! What nonsense.
>>
>> Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral Commission, we
>> elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of 1,269,501.
>
> Wafer thin majority of those who voted, clear minority of those who could, however it is those who vote who decided the issue.

I'll say it again. The majority was 1,269,501. For every 100 people
who voted to Remain, 108 voted to leave.

It's not 'wafer-thin' unless you're blind to the facts.

Besides, it doesn't matter what you call the majority. It was a
majority, and that's what counts.

>>> Brexiteers seem to have much to hide.
>>
>> Negotiators do not reveal their hand. It's Negotiation 101.
>
> Especially if it is seven high! They just bluff, which is what the government is doing to the electorate.
>
> Still as predicted the chickens are starting to come home to roost now and maybe the electorate will fully twig they have been conned when we tip into recession again.

The electorate chose to go down this path towards the sunlit uplands.
They were told and knew full well there might be bumps in the road.

Anyway, Look East had an interesting news item today where they showed a
clip of some Remainer predicting gloom and doom just after the
referendum, preceding the news that inward investment into the east of
England has in fact doubled.

The future is the curse of all futurologists who predict things. That's
why they get it so wrong so much of the time.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-06-12 10:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 11 June 2018 18:26:22 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/06/2018 17:05, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > On Sunday, 10 June 2018 23:14:25 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> >> On 10/06/2018 23:03, pamela wrote:
> >>> On 10:41 10 Jun 2018, MM wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "A damaging culture of 'extraordinary secrecy' inside government
> >>>> is blighting its ability to plan for Brexit, according to a
> >>>> comprehensive study of Whitehall.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Officials are being forced to look at key documents in special
> >>>> reading rooms, while some papers are confined to the offices of
> >>>> the most senior civil servants. The installation of a network of
> >>>> secured computers that can only be accessed by officials with very
> >>>> high security clearance is also being accelerated, to keep the
> >>>> documents under wraps.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Meanwhile, the number of documents being restricted is going
> >>>> 'well beyond' those containing sensitive details of the
> >>>> government’s EU negotiations. Even basic planning and guidance
> >>>> documents are kept locked away, largely inaccessible to civil
> >>>> service teams that need to see them."
> >>>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/whitehall-secrecy-
> >>>> cripples-brexit-plans-says-thinktank
> >>>>
> >>>> Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
> >>>>
> >>>> MM
> >>>
> >>> David Davis started a lot of this hush-hush stuff when he wouldn't
> >>> release the industry sector impact analyses. At first he even
> >>> claimed they didn't exist.
> >>>
> >>> I also recall there was some weird idea put about that the public
> >>> should not be allowed to know what was being negotiated on their
> >>> behalf in case it helped the EU. We were supposed to compromise our
> >>> right to know
> >>
> >> What makes you think you have a 'right to know' anything?
> >>
> >> Where is that enshrined in law?
> >
> > Here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36
> >
> >>
> >>> in the name of something a minority of the electorate
> >>> voted for! What nonsense.
> >>
> >> Yes, that *is* nonsense. According to the Electoral Commission, we
> >> elected to leave the EU, and by a majority of 1,269,501.
> >
> > Wafer thin majority of those who voted, clear minority of those who could, however it is those who vote who decided the issue.
>
> I'll say it again. The majority was 1,269,501. For every 100 people
> who voted to Remain, 108 voted to leave.
>
> It's not 'wafer-thin' unless you're blind to the facts.
>
> Besides, it doesn't matter what you call the majority. It was a
> majority, and that's what counts.
>
> >>> Brexiteers seem to have much to hide.
> >>
> >> Negotiators do not reveal their hand. It's Negotiation 101.
> >
> > Especially if it is seven high! They just bluff, which is what the government is doing to the electorate.
> >
> > Still as predicted the chickens are starting to come home to roost now and maybe the electorate will fully twig they have been conned when we tip into recession again.
>
> The electorate chose to go down this path towards the sunlit uplands.
> They were told and knew full well there might be bumps in the road.
>
> Anyway, Look East had an interesting news item today where they showed a
> clip of some Remainer predicting gloom and doom just after the
> referendum, preceding the news that inward investment into the east of
> England has in fact doubled.
>
> The future is the curse of all futurologists who predict things. That's
> why they get it so wrong so much of the time.

I must have been watching the wrong channel, I understood massive investment was being shifted from the midlands to eastern Europe, not eastern England: -

https://news.sky.com/story/jaguar-land-rover-moves-discovery-production-to-slovakia-11401771

I think this is because the volume sales vehicle will avoid EU tariffs if built in Slovakia, whereas the prestige Range Rovers mostly sell in the UK / RoW and their profit margin is high enough to absorb tariffs on EU exports.

Plenty more of this to come as the UK falls even further behind the EU economically on the slippery slope it has been on since the referendum: -

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-manufacturing-latest-april-worst-five-years-office-national-statistics-gdp-bank-england-a8392891.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/11/no-excuses-slump-in-uk-manufacturing-is-dismal-news
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/economics/9248-uk-trade-deficit-widens-in-april-as-uk-eu-goods-balance-deteriorates
whereas
http://business-review.eu/business/romanias-industrial-production-rose-3-6-pct-in-april-turnover-up-15-pct-172941

damaging our own economy is one way of getting the East Europeans to go home I suppose
Loading...