AndyClaret wrote:For context, he'd spent the previous 2 hours blaming Boris for it.

Other clips where he trys to get guests to blame Boris.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwjDcsj ... e=youtu.be" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J66TBYWIWFY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYOC-w2yOk0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnMcGreal wrote:Has he ********.

Rowls wrote:

He's meant to be diplomatic at all times.

He has a reasonable expectancy that confidential emails remain confidential (and the real villain here is whoever leaked) but at the same time he really ought not to be putting down that kind of language in writing. It's careless and there are plenty of euphemistic terms he could have used..

Rowls wrote:Doesn't look like a report to me, looks much more informal than that.

As I've already covered in post 80 - although it's not his fault he would have been wiser to choose more discreet phrases. It's not as though our political classes aren't aware of the nature of President Trumps entourage or his governing style.

Nothing in the leaks would have been "news" to the PM, so it could have been left unsaid.

As I said, I covered all this in post 80.

I feel a bit for Sir Kim, but he's been unwise and I doubt he'll suffer too much for it.

As for the civil servants learning their place again:

They're the ones under investigation.
They're the ones who have leaked the information.

They need to re-learn their jobs. There has been far too much political interference from the CS and it's something which needs eradicating from our political system.

Spijed wrote:As an Ambassador they have to have a certain degree of impartiality. Can you see that with Trump & Farage working together?

AndyClaret wrote:I listened to it live you pr!ck, and listened to the recording afterwards.

Rowls wrote:If he's been "politically neutral" then how can he branded a "Remainer" without any rebuttal?

AndyClaret wrote:I listened to it live you pr!ck, and listened to the recording afterwards.

Rowls wrote:It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.

Rowls wrote:Have you missed the entire story McGreal?

He didn't say anything that wouldn't have been known in Downing Street. He's essentially "bitching" in the email.

Let's get this straight - it's not his fault but he has been unwise. It's his own words which have made his position untenable. He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms and none of this would have happened.

Do you imagine a humdrum, dull email would have been leaked or made headlines?

His language was undiplomatic and, given his role, borders towards unprofessional. It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.

Rowls wrote:Have you missed the entire story McGreal?

He didn't say anything that wouldn't have been known in Downing Street. He's essentially "bitching" in the email.

Let's get this straight - it's not his fault but he has been unwise. It's his own words which have made his position untenable. He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms and none of this would have happened.

Do you imagine a humdrum, dull email would have been leaked or made headlines?

His language was undiplomatic and, given his role, borders towards unprofessional. It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.

Burnley Ace wrote:So now you are saying that an ambassador should be supporting of or accepting the policy and practices of the government of whichever country they are sent to?

Do you understand what the ambassador actually does? It’s not all Ferraro Roche!

Imploding Turtle wrote:Jesus Christ. How can someone be this ******* ignorant and yet so absolutely certain?

Rowls wrote:A healthy scepticism can work, especially in rotten places like the countries in the middle east or states with whom we have many cultural, economic or political disputes (Russia, for example).

But Sir Kim was the ambassador to the United States of America. That's the kind of sentence that I could finish off with "for crying out loud" and not feel bombastic.

Rowls wrote:Have you missed the entire story McGreal?

He didn't say anything that wouldn't have been known in Downing Street. He's essentially "bitching" in the email.

Let's get this straight - it's not his fault but he has been unwise. It's his own words which have made his position untenable. He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms and none of this would have happened.

Do you imagine a humdrum, dull email would have been leaked or made headlines?

His language was undiplomatic and, given his role, borders towards unprofessional. It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.

martin_p wrote:So he should lie to his employers?

Erasmus wrote:His job was to give an opinion of Trump and his administration to be used by the British government. The fact is that all such communications are deemed to be entirely confidential and hence he should use the type of language that is most effective in conveying his views. Nothing unprofessional at all. Trump's response is of an entirely different order because it was deliberately made public. That is unprofessional and why one feels that he is not fit to hold the office of President.

martin_p wrote:So he should lie to his employers?

JohnMcGreal wrote:His words have not made his position untenable. The leaking of those words to the world has made his position untenable. That is a huge difference.

Rowls wrote:There's a fine line here.

Downing Street will have been well aware of the kind of administration that Trump is running. These "revelations" reveal nothing. I think he ought to have been more discreet in his language given that it was written.

...

Rowls wrote:For the Nth time Martin, I've covered this in post 80.

I'm not going to re-phrase it again for you.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You seriously expect me to listen to other clips you claim are of JoB trying to induce an accusation of blame after you've previously linked a video claiming does that which i spent 6 minutes listening to and it did nothing of the sort? Your credibility here is shot, as is the credibility of that shitty little youtube channel.

AndyClaret wrote:Ahh didumms

AndyClaret wrote:Ahh didumms

martin_p wrote:You can get to the Zth time, it won’t make it any more sensible. The information he provided will have been for a number of people and stored in a growing ‘file’ on information about the US administration. Ministers change on a regular basis and any new minister would be referred to said file for an inside view of the US administration. If you think this information shouldn’t have been written down you are (still) failing to understand its purpose.

martin_p wrote:So he should lie to his employers?

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're the one trying to convince me of something. If you want people to agree with you then you have to demonstrate credibility in what it is you're trying to convince them of.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Then he wouldn't have been doing his ******* job properly. It his literally his job to tell us what the **** is going on over there without attempting to polish any turds. If he tries to polish any turds then he is not doing his job, and the effectiveness of the UK government in dealing with the host country's government is harmed. You are literally suggesting that Darroch shouldn't have done his job as well as he did.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You seriously expect me to listen to other clips you claim are of JoB trying to induce an accusation of blame after you've previously linked a video claiming does that which i spent 6 minutes listening to and it did nothing of the sort? Your credibility here is shot, as is the credibility of that shitty little youtube channel.

Rowls wrote:

OK martin_p let's do it! Let's address your question from another angle...



Heck sure! Why not? You raise the most valid of straw men ever!

But if we're playing the straw man game, why stop there?

The *real* straw man question should be even more outrageously "controversial".

Should he have bitten off his fingers to prevent himself from writing the email?

Should he have swallowed a cyanide pill and leapt out of a tower?

Rowls wrote:Have you missed the entire story McGreal?

He didn't say anything that wouldn't have been known in Downing Street. He's essentially "bitching" in the email.

Let's get this straight - it's not his fault but he has been unwise. It's his own words which have made his position untenable. He could very easily have chosen a few well-placed euphemisms and none of this would have happened.

Do you imagine a humdrum, dull email would have been leaked or made headlines?

His language was undiplomatic and, given his role, borders towards unprofessional. It's apparent that he was unsuited to his position given his evident disdain for the Trump administration.

AndyClaret wrote:I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you have your world view, and view everything through your lens.

martin_p wrote:Rather than trying to be smart (it’s not working) why don’t you explain what you were implying in post #13 on this page if it isn’t that he should be less than truthful with his employers just because this was the POTUS?

Devils_Advocate wrote:At least the racists have got your back on this thread Rowls

Rowls wrote:What?

aggi wrote:So basically what you're saying is the ambassador should refrain from briefings where they think the UK may already know and use euphemisms rather than being candid. I can't see any confusion arising from that.

I mean there is a chance that you know how to do the ambassador's job better than a hugely experienced diplomat I guess but it seems slim.

Rowls wrote:I'm not trying to be smart at all martin_p

You've put forward a stupid straw man argument and you can live with it.

My position has been very clear. I've stated it more than once for you. Yet you persist in asking stupid questions based on nothing that I've said.

So here it is, as you requested, for the Zth time:

It is not Sir Kim's fault; the blame lies with the leaker.

However, had he chosen more diplomatic language in the email (which, admittedly he had a reasonable expectation would remain confidential) then he wouldn't have found himself in this position.

Sir Kim is not culpable although he is not entirely blameless.

This truly is the last time I'll re-phrase it for you and I'll be "smart" with any further ridiculous straw men.

Devils_Advocate wrote:What I said.

martin_p wrote:You’ve rephrased it to not include the bit about not writing it down I see.

What you haven’t done is answer the very reasonable question (asked by someone else), if the communications had been written in ‘more diplomatic language’ and leaked would it have made a blind bit of difference?

martin_p wrote:You’ve rephrased it to not include the bit about not writing it down I see.

What you haven’t done is answer the very reasonable question (asked by someone else), if the communications had been written in ‘more diplomatic language’ and leaked would it have made a blind bit of difference?

AndyClaret wrote:I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you have your world view, and view everything through your lens.

Hapag Lloyd wrote:A full 6 minutes eh, it’s a good job you’ve nowt else to do.

Rowls wrote:I don't follow the meaning of it.

Not sure I understand your intent or what the wider meaning or relevance of it is?

Devils_Advocate wrote:Well you seem to be making a bit of a fool of yourself on here this aft but at least a couple of the boards knuckle draggers are wading in on your side.

Not much of a consolation but at least its sommat

martin_p wrote:Well no, you said it was a clip of O’Brien failing to get Sir what’s-his-face to blame Boris for Darroch’s sacking. It wasn’t. Unless you’re taking the fact that the blame lying on Boris was never mentioned by either party as proving your claim. In which case he also failed to get Sir what’s-his-face to say Tom Heaton isn’t going to Aston Villa!

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm pretty sure Andy simply hadn't listened to it. Either that or he did listen to it, knew it was a complete lie, and then just shared it anyway not expecting people to listen to what he shared therefore expecting to get away with posting what amounts to fake news.

It's a tactic I see a lot from these alt-right types. Just claim that something supports your point even if it doesn't. I think it's because when we post evidence supporting our point they don't review it, so they just expect we won't review whatever nonsense they post. It happens a lot on here.

Rowls wrote:"So what you're saying...."

Why is it that whenever this phrase crops up it is almost always incorrect?

For clarification:

No. That is not "what I'm saying".

What I am saying is that diplomats should choose a register of language appropriate for the medium.

AndyClaret wrote:Like i said, listen to the other clips, in fact listen to the full hour from 11.55 on catch up, his all narrative was "Boris has done this", none of the 4 guests he had on agreed with him, and you could hear him getting more and more frantic trying to pin it on Boris.