Should Isobel Oakeshott be tried and charged for Treason?

Wow- the plot thickens - and she is the mistress of Farage's friend Tyne, who has left his wife for her.

Not acceptable to leak documents contravening Official Secret's Act - treason indeed- and as WW2 says- because it puts UK security at risk.

Sorry, Tice. And NO, it is NOT a private matter.

One of the things that infuriates me is that for the past three years whenever I've watched political programme she is one of the people [along with Farage and Mark Francois] who turn up time and time again.

The point is, the information that is 'leaked' is STOLEN. Therefore these journalists who receive it and write about it and the papers which publish it, should be at the very least, interrogated, and preferably prosecuted.

Think of the people who work in the departments under investigation, wondering if they will be implicated, which of their colleagues it is, whether someone has been going through their desk, files, etc. And all the time these journalists are sitting on the knowledge of who is responsible, but acting like martyrs 'protecting'their sources and pretending it is in the interest of The Public, not their own.

Reminds me of the Profumo affair - when leaked info which put the country's security at risk - is found between the sheets. NOT a private matter at all.

And today we're hearing more leaked comments that Trump withdrew from Iran nuclear pact to undermine Obama.
No surprise there!
What does international security matter if you can score points against someone you don't like?

The Official Secrets Act seems to be very clear about the 'legality' of Oakshott's 'leaks'

pbs.twimg.com/media/D_XGIhnWsAETpqX.jpg:large

No evidence appeared that any information was leaked which breached the country's security in the exposure of the Profumo affair through its Ivanov connection.
No similarity between that unpleasant affair and people stealing confidential information sent by a British Ambassador.

I presume that Oakeshott has not signed the OSA so is not in breach of it. Journalists obtain their information from all kinds of sources, probably not always adhering to the strict letter of the law eazybee.
It is whoever passed the information to her who needs to be found and prosecuted as presumably they will have signed the OSA.

Interesting jura - Oakeshott and Tyce. The plot thickens.
He was on Newsnight talking about this the other evening.
Or rather, talking over others about this.

I presume that Oakeshott has not signed the OSA so is not in breach of it.

It is not necessary for a person to have signed the Official Secrets Act in order to be bound by it. The 1989 Act states that a person can be "notified" that he or she is bound by it; and Government employees will usually be informed via their contract of employment if they must observe the Act

The Official Secrets Act 1989 replaced the "catch-all" section 2 from the Official Secrets Act 1911, under which it was a criminal offence to disclose any official information without lawful authority. The 1989 Act creates offences connected with the unauthorised disclosure of information in six specified categories by Government employees. These are:

Security and intelligence
Defence
International Relations
Information which might lead to the commission of crime
Foreign confidences
The special investigation powers under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Services Act 1989

researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7422

It's not at all clear from this Briefing if the act also applies to ordinary citizens.

It's not at all clear from this Briefing if the act also applies to ordinary citizens.

Apologies. It does apply to 'ordinary citizens, as the excerpt I posted at 09.58 says. That comes from the full HOC Briefing paper on the OSA; but I'd copied from a twitter image, so wasn't sure of its source

It is important that our press is protected and that they have freedom of speech. But I also think that it is important that they take this privilege very seriously and do nothing to injure the national interest.

Now Oakley we know is in the Farage, Banks, Tice, Bannon group, who have called for the removal of Our Ambassador to be replaced by a “businessman”. Trump has called for Farage to be ambassador. Trump is friendly with Farage, Bannon etc.
Johnson refused to support our ambassador.

It stinks.

What a load of codswallop lol.

Why

Are you seriously suggesting, that it is sheer coincidence that Oakshott (who is in a relationship with Tice, who has been calling for our ambassador to be replaced by a “businessman”)is the one “journalist in the world who is fed the information over the leaked email.

No one could be so naive

Surely not, for sure. To think so would indeed be pure codswhatsit

I wonder how much Oakeshott would get away with, if she weren't an extremely attractive woman. It's obvious from Twitter that she has fans who lust over her appearance and couldn't give a fig about whatever she has done. Hopefully, the source of the leak will be revealed. I never used to believe in conspiracy theories, but what's happening at the moment is persuading me otherwise. Maybe it's a coincidence that the same people who are after Carole Codwalladr are strangely silent about Oakeshott...hhhhmmm! PS. I give her 0/10 for leaving her husband and children for a bouffanted snakeoil salesman like Richard Tice (I don't suppose the multi millions had anything to do with it).

Whitewavemark, unfortunately it would appear that some people ARE so naïve... the only alternative conclusion is that they are amoral and couldn't give a damn about how their objectives are achieved.

growstuff yes Codwalladr.

What a difference in the two journalists!

Oakshott appears to have no care for the national interest as long as the group she belongs to obtain their goal.

Codwalladr appears to care entirely for our national interest and the democratic process. She has been successful in shutting down CA, and reporting various dark money influences, which has meant that Banks is going after her in the court to try to shut her down. Not because she is harming the U.K. but because she cares for our democracy.

What a difference between the integrity of the two.

The police in Gibraltar, Malta and Jersey are investigating a company known as STM Group run by a very dodgy character called Kentish.

STM Group bailed out Banks insurance group with what is thought to have been laundered money.

I always think laundered money sounds so clean doesn’t it? But will be in fact money from, gun running or drugs, prostitution etc. Thousands if not millions of lives will have suffered as a result of these filthy illegal trades.

Kentish is also associated to Banks through various other companies.

The Electorial Commission is examining the source of the £8.4million donated by Banks. So far he has refused to declare either the source if this money or the money used to bail out his company.

This is why Banks is trying to shut Codwalladr down. Her excellent journalism is exposing the cancer at the heart of the Leave campaign.

Carole Cadwalladr is the brave journalist who exposed the dark money and corruption of the Cambridge Analytica attack on democracy applauded by Nigel Farage, Steve Bannon, Aaron Banks and their minions like Richard Tice, Isabel Oakshott, Anne Widdecombe et al.

If you haven't already watched Carole's TED talk please do. It could well be the most enlightening fifteen minutes you have ever spent.

www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?language=en

That is what Banks is taking her to court about.

I think that she will be well crowd-funded to stand up to these awful people.

Just look at this thread

twitter.com/carolecadwalla?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor