What’s the difference between ‘legitimately revealed information’ and ‘a corrosive effect’?
Only the political party it appears.
The Shadow Leader of the House, Sir George Young has written to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, requesting that the Cabinet Office investigate the leaking of documents regarding the granting of Lord Ashcroft’s peerage. Here is the full text of the letter:
Sensitive papers prepared by the Cabinet Office for a Select Committee inquiry have been leaked to the BBC.
You will be aware that this is a serious matter. As the Cabinet Office has previously stated, all leaks have a corrosive effect on the business of government. It is of particular concern in such close proximity to a general election.
I am writing to ask you to instigate a leak inquiry to establish who was responsible for this breach of confidence.”
In November 2008, the Shadow Immigration Minister, Damian Green was arrested and questioned by the police last night as part of a leak inquiry. At this time, the Conservatives’ official spokesman said:
“Mr Green has, on a number of occasions, legitimately revealed information, which the Home Office chose not to make public. Disclosure of this information was manifestly in the public interest.”
So what made the disclosure of the information about Ashcroft, Arbuthnot and Hague any less in the public interest? Or indeed the information leaked by Green any less corrosive?
Related posts:
- Who are you calling a stupid slut?
- Government climbdown over MPs expenses?
- LibDem in defence of a Conservative minister
Comments
Leave a Reply:
