Published On: Wed, May 8th, 2019

For the simple sake of disruption and discombobulation: the Gavin Williamson sacking

Share This

Because someone needs to, let us be the ones, dear reader, to think a little while upon the sacking of Gavin Williamson from his role in the UK Government as Defence Secretary.  Those people who remain silly enough to purchase newspapers would, on the morning of Thursday 2nd May, have been faced with an array on newsagents shelves of front pages fully dedicated to the subject. Let us suggest that the date – May 2nd – called for the proper attention of this print mass media to be turned to the local elections that were in the process of commencing even as those yet more ridiculous people who buy a paper and get it delivered were finding their morning edition on the welcome mat. If this is a fair statement to make, then Williamson’s sacking was potentially an act for distraction – and it certainly now appears that Government had very good reason for wanting local elections to pass off with no more scrutiny than the official sort that corporate-media would offer (see the previous FBEL article). On the other hand, for want of any other explanation, Williamson’s sacking could be disruption: a kind of incident for the discombobulation of the public that is actually quite routine and isn’t dependent of existence of other news to be buried. Williamson’s case did remind the author somewhat of the Priti Patel case, and an FBEL piece about her departure from the role of International Development secretary is worth a timely re-read. Priti Patel and the Philosophers of Fire; British Establishment sorcery at its best, pointed out that…

Basically, the whole palaver is an operation to create favourable conditions in Britain for the purposes of the Establishment… Disruption is great for causing intense feelings of uncertainty. Uncertainty inspires a reaching for a radical solution… in this day and age, the Establishment wants to generate a rejection of Brexit.

Whatever else it is, the sacking of Gavin Williamson is an incident of pure poetic justice. It was Williamson, of course, who expressed annoyance in a particularly idiotic way at Russian refusal to take the British Government at its word regarding the Salisbury poisoning hoax. It is with the highest degree of irony that Williamson has been treated the same way now as was the Russian Government then. Theresa May told him in his firing letter that there was no other “credible version of events” to explain a leak from a National Security Council than his being the culprit. The FBEL reader will be bound to remember that the British Government used incredibly similar, if not exactly the same sort of language to assert Russian culpability without providing any proof. Naturally, Williamson’s automatic guilt, attributed to him from parties that have previously demonstrated they are quite decidedly not to be trusted, is another reason for any thinking person to appreciate that all is definitely not as it seems.

The official story starts with a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC), which is a meeting between the Cabinet (or the executive part of British Government), GCHQ, MI6 and MI5. That these councils do involve a supposedly entirely civilian part of Government, and yet they are secret, and thus beyond being accountable to tax payers, merely demonstrates the overlordship of the British Military (answering in turn to the Crown – or the City of London) which sits on them. Not to digress too far, a particular meeting of this council, held on Tuesday 23rd April, agreed to let the Chinese company, Huawei, be involved in the installation of a planned 5G (5th Generation) wireless network in Britain. Please note: that the council agreed is a very important detail – and this exact wording is used in the reportage that initially came from The Telegraph when it – and in particular, the “journalist” and “deputy political editor”, Steven Swinford – broke the story on Wednesday 24th, as can be seen from the following extract†:

Theresa May has given the green light to a Chinese telecoms giant to help build Britain’s new 5G network despite warnings from the US and some of her most senior ministers that it poses a risk to national security.

The National Security Council, which is chaired by the Prime Minister, agreed on Tuesday to allow Huawei limited access to help build parts of the network such as antennas and other “noncore” infrastructure.

Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, Foreign Secretary, Gavin Williamson, Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, International Trade Secretary, and Penny Mordaunt, International Development Secretary, were said to have raised concerns about the approach.

What is clearly suggested here is that any decision regarding Huawei has not been Theresa May’s alone – as has been the impression that corporate-media has generally been giving. Moreover, the best one might be able to say about the ministers named, including Williamson, with regards to their opposition to “May’s decision” is that they appear to be party to it nevertheless. The author suggests that the insight that is being offered here is that, in terms of normal process, the British military-industrial/financial complex lays down the law, and the civilian cabinet goes along to get along, and May, the figurehead of the cabinet, is attributed with having made the decision.

Obviously, with the abovementioned Telegraph article making the fact of a supposedly secret decision known to the world meant that information passed to its staff from within the meeting had been put into the public domain. A “leak” had been complete. There then followed a bit of a furore, and an enquiry of sorts was launched in order to discover how The Telegraph had got hold of the information that it had published. It appears that the characters named in the above extract may have been prime suspects, but in the end, Williamson was accused and indeed firmly blamed – at least, his department was, with him being ultimately responsible. And yet, it was also subsequently put out that Williamson had held a telephone conversation with Swinford, the “journalist” who wrote the story that initially made the information public.

One has to be a bit dim not to have it occur that this telephone ruse would be an entirely too obvious device, even if it had actually happened, to make it appear as if the leak came directly from Williamson to Swinford‡; and we should note that Williamson does not anywhere appear to deny that the conversation took place – he only denies that he was the source of the leak. We might conclude that someone called Williamson to set him up. Indeed, we can strongly suspect that Williamson has been a dumb patsy because of the stubbornness of his denial: he defied Theresa May when she confronted him with “compelling evidence” of his guilt to try to have him resign. Because Williamson declined – making May’s evidence not compelling enough – he therefore forced May to sack him. As the old saying goes, the wicked flee though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion

Compounding the impression that Williamson has been made a fall guy is the way that the matter was declared closed, shut up and not to be picked at by Theresa May. It would have been up to the Cabinet Office to complain to the Metropolitan Police about a breach of the Official Secrets Act – which is what Williamson had been accused of – and it appears that there has been no intention of doing that. Then, of course, it is imperative to remember that there is no such thing as a leak: there is only tightly controlled release of material that Government wants to put in the public domain. So we get to the issue at the heart of the Williamson incident: what is it that Government is trying to achieve?

An obvious answer is a situation whereby one engineered faction can argue with another about Huawei involvement in British infrastructure; indeed in his follow up piece of the 25th April, I broke the Huawei 5G story – its huge ramifications must be open to public debate, Swinford wasted no time in grabbing the bull by the horns:

The involvement of Huawei in supplying technology for Britain’s 5G infrastructure is undeniably a matter of significant public interest.

It is a decision that has already led to bitter divides between ministers and MPs on all sides of the Commons, and has the potential to open a rift between Britain and its most significant ally – the United States.

Note the impression given that British politics is in uproar, and US-UK relations are strained to the point of an “open rift”. It looks like disruption for discombobulation – which would be the ultimate answer to that question, what is the Government trying to achieve. And, while there is a hint in this entire incident of a factionalism existing in Government now divided by the issue of Huawei as well as anything else that previously defined a split, if we start overstating any such phenomenon, then we quickly make the mistake of believing in a fictional deep state versus the “good” people. Risk of falling into such delusions can be avoided by understanding that there has in fact been no final decision on incorporating Huawei and its equipment into Government plans. Go back and look at Swinford’s first piece. What was actually “leaked” was information about a stance by the NSC whereby Huawei involvement was permissible, not definite. This fact is made completely clear in other reporting (via the BBC):

There has been no formal confirmation of Huawei’s role in the 5G network and No 10 said a final decision would be made at the end of spring.

Maybe it is this crucial information that explains why, according to Neil Basu, the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the “leak” didn’t actually constitute a breach of the Official Secrets Act.

Mr Basu, who is Britain’s top counter-terrorism police officer, said that what was disclosed “did not contain information that would breach the Official Secrets Act”.

He added: “The leak did not cause damage to the public interest at a level at which it would be necessary to engage misconduct in a public office.

“It would be inappropriate to carry out a police investigation in these circumstances.”

Mr Basu said the decision was informed by conversations with the Cabinet Office about the nature of the matters discussed at the meeting. He also took legal advice.

Basu’s contribution came over the recent bank holiday weekend, and there is only one important thing to know about it: it was entirely unnecessary. Because the matter of the leak was only for police attention upon it having being referred to them by the Cabinet Office, and because the matter has not been referred to them, then there was no good reason for Basu to offer an opinion. Wasting police time used to be a serious thing – and here is a very senior officer of the Metropolitan Police doing it himself, and unprompted, and obviously as some political auxiliary, and not as an independent custodian of the “law”. FBEL readers will know that this is par for the course, these days. Ultimately, it appears that Basu’s intervention was deemed necessary because Williamson had been vocal about the necessity of police involvement and an investigation that he felt would ultimately find him innocent.

Of course, the drawback of Basu’s twopenneth is that in denying the cause for Williamson’s sacking, the man appears to be vindicated even without an investigation. This must have been why it was thought necessary for the Sunday Times, at about the same time as Basu was intervening, to publish additional reasons for why it was necessary (but not plausible) to sack Williamson. In other words, the so called leak from the NSC was now an excuse to sack Williamson for cumulative misdemeanours that in themselves were not good cause for his dismissal; or, the leak was the last straw by which to terminate his cabinet career. Accusations were made to the effect that Williamson sowed sedition against Theresa May, possibly borne out frustration that she would not permit British forces to invade Africa, or test China in Far East waters. Obviously meant to make Williamson look ridiculous, we might dismiss them as being the very smears that Williamson called them in his reaction. Unfortunately, however, Williamson has previous experience of demonstrating that he is an over-promoted, Alan-Partridge-looking buffoon, and a sad indictment of a people (the British) who relentlessly consent to be ruled by the medically cretinous, but yet “ubermensch” by Masonry-induced grand delusion, of Britain’s perpetual Government class (and immediately springing to mind as a prime example – not least because of his prospering by this incident by knock-on effect to become the Secretary of State for International Development by knock-on promotion, as well as a so-called Tory leadership hopeful – is that soggy pizzle of a man, Rory Stewart, Bilderberg attendee and son of would-be Mi6 director, who “conceded his own career path might ‘give the appearance’ that he worked for MI6”).

Speaking of Mi6, it is a long-held belief at FBEL that The Times is a direct mouthpiece for British military intelligence. Moreover, Basu personally demonstrated the cahoots that military intelligence and the Met Police are always in when he worked so hard to shore-up the Salisbury hoax of 2018. This is the background to the author’s feeling certain that all the information that came to light this past weekend about Williamson was part of a coordinated effort to shore-up yet another psychological operation. Moreover, the whole Huawei involvement in British 5G looks to be a complete non-issue that has been exacerbated to provide superficial plausibility about the seriousness of a leak from an NSC meeting. In turn, the leak looks like it was meant to be a way of accelerating a subject as source for disruption. We should observe that things have not gone straightforwardly – which seems to be a defining feature of operations conceived by Britain’s military intelligence these days, naturally indicating that personnel in the offices responsible are incompetents, and likely even less wise than the confused Muggles for whom these theatrical escapades are performed. Unlike Patel, who, like a good and reliable minion, resigned from her position, Williamson – being too dumb to understand the inevitability of “Oranges and Lemons” – stayed like he was innocent, and then continued to protest. It evidently wasn’t planned for.

There is one aspect of this entire episode that, even though it sits central and glaring in all the information, generally remains unremarked upon in corporate-media so as to prevent detection by the sheeple, who being unable to see it by their own trying do deserve the reputation by which justification is manufactured for their fleecing. What we are talking about is the fact that what is at face value a civilian communications infrastructure, meaning the 5G network, is the stuff of business for the secretive NSC. This circumstance reminds that, like the Roman roads, which were primarily for efficient logistics for an occupation, any nationwide communications system is going to be martial in nature: for governance, and for what is essentially occupation. With this in mind, it is quite certain that there is not a chance in hell that the British Government is going to let its 5G network be compromised by what is in essence an arm of Chinese corporate-government. In fact, this would have been clear to anyone who managed to read with a modicum of care the very first reporting in the initial Telegraph article: Huawei would provide non-core infrastructure.

The importance of the 5G network for an effective control grid, and understanding it in that light, also should guide many people to get to grips with a little bit of truth that may have been eluding them – people who have been the audience to a very animated part of the alternative media concerned with and promoting the idea about dangers of radiation from 5G. We should perhaps understand that it might be unhelpful for Government to make sacrifices to the efficient functionality of its all important communications network by also using it to deliberately try and make people ill (the big problem with wireless telephone networks will probably remain the same as it always has been: the use of a transmitter – a phone – placed in close proximity to the head to cause warming and ultimately stimulate cancer in the brain [bonkers alternative media would instead have you worry about radio wave to voice-in-head projection technology as an inherent feature of 5G]). For population control, the Government already has the National Health Service, which does a very good job at what it has been assigned to do.



† In fact, this is all a reader can see when they are not a subscriber to The Telegraph.

‡ Indeed, although Swinford claims he broke the story, Reuters was reporting it at 11:04 PM on 23rd April – ten hours before The Telegraph article appeared (and please take important note: this Telegraph article is the one that Swinford later refers to on 25th April when taking responsibility for breaking the story). Of course, Swinford’s story could have been in the paper variation overnight. Whichever, the author thinks that Swinford’s direct involvement in the progress of the information from the NSC meeting to the public domain could be an entire fairy tale well beyond the cover story of a telephone call.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image