Downing Street Says » Peter Clarke

Asked if the leaking of information that Mr. Clarke was talking about, in his speech yesterday, was so damaging surely there is a case for an inquiry into that particular case, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said what he had said this morning still held. You do have to ask yourself what the chances are of finding out who did carry out the leak, but that is a judgement for others. The important thing is to recognise that Peter Clarke’s speech, number 1, he condemned the leaking and we fully support him 110 percent; number 2, it was a much broader warning to society as a whole about the severity of the international threat that we face, the terrorist threat that we face and again in that we support him.

Put to the PMOS that the information was only available to a very small number of people and therefore it would actually be quite easy to work out who leaked, the PMOS said that it was a judgement for others to make. Asked who the other people were, the PMOS said those who are aware of who had the information and that is an operational matter, not a matter for the PMOS.

Asked if that meant significant people, the PMOS said as he had said it was not a matter for the PMOS, it was a matter for those who operationally were aware of it. Asked if that meant the police, the PMOS said again he did not know who knew, nor should he have known who knew.

Asked if it was thought that people were looking at the matter internally, the PMOS said that it was not a matter for the PMOS as it was not a matter of which the PMOS needed to be operationally aware. Asked if the Government had responded to the leak and the serious mature of the police complaint, the PMOS said that in the reporter’s questions there was an assumption that the leak came from Government. We have no evidence to support that. If anyone else has evidence to support that then they should produce it.

Asked if it was correct to surmise that anyone was pressing the Prime Minister for an inquiry is asking the wrong bloke but that there was a right bloke to ask who may be asked the same question and the answer would be yes, the PMOS said that he was not going to get into any speculation. What he would not do was accept the assumption that this came from within Government because there is no evidence, that the PMOS was aware of, that it did. That is not a matter for the PMOS, it is a matter for others.
Put to the PMOS that Peter Clarke seemed to be saying he knew where the leak had come from, why is no one speaking to him, the PMOS suggested that the reporter returns to what Peter Clarke actually said, as he has said on the record that he does not know who leaked it.

Asked if Peter Clarke has raised his concerns directly with the Government in any way, the PMOS said that he was not aware of that but he had not asked the question specifically, so the reporter should approach the Home Office.

Put to him that the Home Secretary’s speech today suggested that his every waking hour was concerned with security, was it not buck passing within Whitehall not to order an inquiry into the leak, the PMOS said that the problem with the reporter’s question was, implicit in it, was the assumption that the leak came from within Government. The reporter added that since there seemed to be no attempt by the Government to find where the leak came from, why is the Government not concerned to find out where the leak came from, the PMOS said, in the first instance, this is not a matter for the Government, it is a matter for others.

Put to the PMOS that it was odd that very senior police officers say that if information is being leaked that potentially puts lives at risk or the nation’s security at risk, why does the Government not want to know where the leak came from or how it happened, the PMOS said again in the first instance it was for others to address such matters. The police have said on the record that they do not know where the leak came from. Asked if others, maybe MI5 knew, the PMOS said he would not be drawn into speculation.

Asked if the Prime Minister was satisfied that it was not the police who had leaked as it was normally the police who ring up on these occasions, the PMOS again said he was not going to get drawn into any speculation about who it may have been. People are fully aware of the seriousness of these issues and of the need for confidentiality. Put to the PMOS that it would be fair to say the Prime Minister was not ruling out a leak from the police, the PMOS said that he could not be caught that way and added that the Prime Minister believed that if people have evidence then they should come forward with that evidence.

Asked if it was correct that the Government understood that someone who had the information about the arrests leaked it under authorisation, the PMOS said there was no indication of authorisation whatsoever. Asked if it was accepted there was a leak, the PMOS said that something appeared that should not have appeared Peter Clarke had said that, a that was wrong.

Asked if the police could take it upon themselves to investigate it anyway, and should they not be doing that, the PMOS said it was a matter for the police.

Asked if it was the rule that a leak inquiry is only launched when the Government is absolutely certain it is someone within Government, the PMOS said that you have to have evidence into which to inquire we do not have evidence.

Put that the point of public trust Peter Clarke said he was frustrated that there were lots of cases pending that he could not discuss or be made available to the public and he thinks there could be a case for looking at the laws to allow prospective jurors more room to differentiate so did the Government think there was any case for looking at tinkering with the law to give the public more information on cases in progress, the PMOS said that these concerns need to go through the proper policy process. You have to consider such suggestions against the legal context and the way to do that was through the proper process. The PMOS added it was not helpful for him to give any commentary on that kind of policy matter.

2 Comments »

Amazing stuff.

As Craig Murray puts it: "By what right was David Shayler jailed, but Dipesh Gadher and his informant not even looked at?"

If a leak furthers the agenda of government, at best there is a bit of ‘tut-tutting’ from ministers; If it damages that agenda then the full weight of the Establishment is brought to bear in short order.

They really must think we are stupid.
Comment by Sabretache — 26 Apr 2007 on 11:42 am | Link
There is only one serious threat to the security of this country. It is posed by America and a compliant British prime minister.
Comment by Victor Winstone — 29 Apr 2007 on 9:06 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Peter Clarke

2 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries