Exclusive from @matt_dathan
A dossier of evidence from the security services showing that China was a threat to Britain’s national security was not passed to prosecutors in the China spying case after Labour came to power, according to former ministers
Former ministers have told The Times that the security services had prepared a dossier of evidence with “hundreds” of examples and case studies that proved China was a threat
The evidence detailed a “compilation of Chinese activity” and was used by the Home Office in an attempt to convince other Whitehall departments of the need to designate China a national security threat
The detail of the document remains classified but is understood to have included intelligence about Chinese digital and conventional espionage activities targeting Britain’s critical national infrastructure
This was in addition to “hundreds” of accounts of cyberattacks, theft of intellectual property, theft relating to critical infrastructure and secret police stations set up by Beijing to spy on Hong Kong dissidents in the UK. It also included information about bounties that had been placed on the dissidents’ heads
https://t.co/ae3bLcstMH
Speaking in the Security update - Officials Secrets Act Case: The 2002 and 2003 integrated reviews were very clear. All the officials and the security services called and said that China was a significant threat. That was sufficient to give to the CPS, not even by ministers but by officials. The question is: why wasn’t it?
But the question I really wanted to ask today concerns this absurdity about the role, or lack of role, of the National Security Adviser. The government says he wasn’t involved in any matters of substance — but isn’t it the role of the National Security Adviser to be involved in all matters of substance when it comes to national security?
So, what’s the point of a National Security Adviser who does not involve themselves in matters of national security, as in this case? Instead, we are meant to believe that the Deputy National Security Adviser is allowed, in this case, to involve themselves in substantial matters of national security, but not apparently discuss these substantial matters of national security with the National Security Adviser. This does seem to be an absolute matter of substantial absurdity.
@The_TUC Instead of shouting at the government shout at the people that caused the problems. If they stopped recruiting top line managers and diversity managers there would be enough money not only to pay nurses a decent wage but also increase recruitment
@YLittlejohns @Jacob_Rees_Mogg All of my NHS work colleagues are delighted that he maybe standing again. Ps, I saw you had ‘Save the NHS’ in your name so I thought you would be interested. Even the union rep liked Boris
What a sad and profound loss @amessd_southend is not only to his constituents but also to our campaign to ban trophy hunting. Honour his name #BanTrophyhunting now.
This is truly unbelievable… first they break the poor elephants spirit then they humiliate the poor creature…this kind of torture should be banned. Those who support it should be ashamed. This is Torture not Entertainment support : @stae_elephants
Faint opposition to the cull. Why not first talk to scientists leading cull opposition?Vaccinating badgers is a ladder to climb down 4 Defra but beware the fake narrative that could lead to perpetual culling. Don't be duped whilst dancing with the devil https://t.co/pfaUo3cR1z
.@rickygervais@marcthevet@domdyer70@IainTime 1st pic is how the beagle puppies are delivered to the lab for toxicity testing : 19 weeks testing with no anaesthetic..cruelty in the extreme..2nd pic is how they leave the lab..dumped in rubbish bags..support : @campbeagleoffic