Best Of

"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed."
I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system.
What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.

The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.

But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).

I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.

About the only person I have seen worth following on this is David Allen Green, who, IMO brings us up to date as far as can be done today:

https://davidallengreen.com/2025/10/what-the-chinese-spying-case-witness-statements-reveal/

The only thing I would add is that in guessing what lies behind it all, Ockham's razor + common sense + cockup + our dependence on China + the need to complexify and spread possible blame fairly thinly between anyone who matters, supplies the necessary material.

That's kind of what I expected following the exchanges at PMQs yesterday. I think it is tolerably clear that it is the DPP and the CPS that have got questions to answer here, not the government. Starmer confused things somewhat moaning about the delay in bring the 2023 Act into force but that really is not the point. The point is that there was sufficient evidence to meet the 1911 test at the time of charging AND at the time the decision was made not to proceed. The CPS were simply wrong to drop the prosecution.

You’ve broken so many hearts with that post.

"Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed."
I, possibly erroneously, have a generally positive impression of Bernard Jenkin but suggesting that the witness should have been told what to put in their statement doesn't seem to be "beyond belief" in a democratic country with a properly functioning legal system.
What would be wrong is a witness being instructed on what to say in their statement.

The CPS say they dropped the case because another case earlier this year established that for it to have a good chance of conviction the prosecution needed to point to the government having labelled China a national security risk at the time the alleged offences were committed. Assuming that is true, and since you can't rewrite history, this relates to the previous government and I don't see how anything said by this one could be relevant. Eg, "the previous government did not describe China as a national security risk this one does, so we'll go for it" - this won't wash because it's the situation at the time of the offences that counts.

But it is all on record - on Wikipedia no less - that the previous government regarded China as a threat. The CPS could simply have read the relevant passages from the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the Integrated Review (2021).

I can't help but feel that there's something else going on, and the explanations being provided are a smokescreen.

I work in IT, in banks.

The official position, provided to banks openly, was that China was on the list of state actors who were

- infiltrating finance
- Stealing info
- Engaging in electronic espionage
- Setting up and testing attacks on infrastructure (usually through proxies)

It’s been that way for years.

Everyone knows this.

Hell, when a cheap laser cuter at a communal workshop crashed when we didn’t connect it to the internet… no one was surprised that was because it was forwarding all designs cut to an IP address in China. That waste than a decade ago.

We fixed the laser cutter by getting it to send DXF that weren’t the designs. Generated from stills in a movie, IIRC.

“He said while there was sufficient evidence when charges were originally brought against the two men, a precedent set by another spying case earlier this year meant China would need to have been labelled a "threat to national security" at the time of the alleged offences.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ex172rxwzo

What I don’t understand is why that is the case? It seems an oddly specific requirement. And the failure appears to be on the CPS not saying, “We need these exact words.”

Every minister, shadow minister, and government department concerned with such matters, should be shouting from the rooftops that China is a threat to national security.

Everyone needs to understand that China is a massive threat to national security, the biggest threat we’ve faced since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

a

If we get on the wrong side of China, they might stop selling us tat that we don't need.

What am I missing here?

It’s worse than that.

Their plan is to stop selling us things that we might really need, such as EV batteries, so they can instead sell us their cars by denying European and American manufacturers the batteries - because Europe and America don’t have the technology to produce the new improved batteries the Chinese are now making.

This is why Trump is talking about 100% tariffs on China, and other Western nations face the same dilemma.

There is of course a way forward - develop and manufacture batteries in the west.

MURICA - Batteries are ANTIFA
UK - Ah, Yes, Brugh, BRITVOLT, er, right, oh
EU - we want to make profit from the engines we already make

Electrification is here and it can't be stopped. What the rage baiters foaming on about EVs don't get is that most people don't care that much about cars. Offer them a new one thats easier to drive cheaper to maintain and more reliable and they'll take it. And they are, with EV sales continuing to rise.

ICE is on its way out, and China will rule the world unless the west wakes up and starts investing serious money.

And a reminder

1) A speech about building batteries isn’t building batteries.
2) A report on building batteries isn’t building batteries.
3) A policy on building batteries isn’t building batteries.

Building fuck off gigantic factories building batteries *is* building batteries.

And solar panels. Of all the stupid things the Reform clowns want to do, switch off renewables is top of the heap. We will end up having to reverse course some years later and be so far behind that we will always then be reliant on other countries.

We have abundant renewable sources, with so much energy flowing that we have to pay the companies to dump it as we can't transmit it and we can't consume it quickly enough. The obvious solution is better transmission - needed anyway as so little money has been spent by the private sector - and battery storage. And not just at big sites - local generation and storage.

But no, the fukers want to shut the whole thing down, import more LNG and then we're fine apparently. Asshats the lot of them, whether they turn up to selection meetings in union jack shorts or not.

Hi Rochdale,

What is the reaction in Aberdeenshire re the large pylon project up your way, are you hearing many opinions either way on the doorstep?

There are "stop the pylons" protestors linking this to Net Zero. But then again they objected to the ones not linked to Net Zero. I get it, pylons are ugly. But they need to go somewhere.

Just to add that it's employing a few of my friends so a big thumbs up from me. One is ex- O&G and doing conversions into electricity transmission.

I am ideologically opposed because I think it reflects our lack of regional pricing - building pylons in Scotland instead of turbines in England.

Ed miliband will be delighted so many new turbines are coming on in Scotland and Scottish waters, makes his job a lot easier. But energy should be built as close to source of use as possible, carting it nearly the full length of the UK is not going to bring energy bills down, the reverse instead

If Britain had regional pricing then there would be a clear price signal for two things to happen. Firstly, industry would have much cheaper energy available if it sited itself in Scotland. Secondly, the relatively higher price for electricity down south would provide the incentive to invest in more interconnect capacity to move the electricity to southern England.

The end result would be more efficient use of the electricity generated by wind in Scotland, and lower prices overall.

But I guess the London newspapers would criticise it as London subsidising electricity prices in Scotland.

.

a

If we get on the wrong side of China, they might stop selling us tat that we don't need.

What am I missing here?

It’s worse than that.

Their plan is to stop selling us things that we might really need, such as EV batteries, so they can instead sell us their cars by denying European and American manufacturers the batteries - because Europe and America don’t have the technology to produce the new improved batteries the Chinese are now making.

This is why Trump is talking about 100% tariffs on China, and other Western nations face the same dilemma.

There is of course a way forward - develop and manufacture batteries in the west.

MURICA - Batteries are ANTIFA
UK - Ah, Yes, Brugh, BRITVOLT, er, right, oh
EU - we want to make profit from the engines we already make

Electrification is here and it can't be stopped. What the rage baiters foaming on about EVs don't get is that most people don't care that much about cars. Offer them a new one thats easier to drive cheaper to maintain and more reliable and they'll take it. And they are, with EV sales continuing to rise.

ICE is on its way out, and China will rule the world unless the west wakes up and starts investing serious money.

And a reminder

1) A speech about building batteries isn’t building batteries.
2) A report on building batteries isn’t building batteries.
3) A policy on building batteries isn’t building batteries.

Building fuck off gigantic factories building batteries *is* building batteries.

And solar panels. Of all the stupid things the Reform clowns want to do, switch off renewables is top of the heap. We will end up having to reverse course some years later and be so far behind that we will always then be reliant on other countries.

We have abundant renewable sources, with so much energy flowing that we have to pay the companies to dump it as we can't transmit it and we can't consume it quickly enough. The obvious solution is better transmission - needed anyway as so little money has been spent by the private sector - and battery storage. And not just at big sites - local generation and storage.

But no, the fukers want to shut the whole thing down, import more LNG and then we're fine apparently. Asshats the lot of them, whether they turn up to selection meetings in union jack shorts or not.

ALL of that has been pretty clear for a decade. We've certainly been arguing about it here for at least as long as that.

The difference is that all the stuff people said wouldn't happen - renewables cheaper than fossil fuel; EVs cheaper than ICE cars; battery storage capable of solving daily intermittency economically etc has either now happened, or is about to be delivered within this decade.

We've not seriously planned for any of that - while China bet their future on it.

Time to end the denial.

“He said while there was sufficient evidence when charges were originally brought against the two men, a precedent set by another spying case earlier this year meant China would need to have been labelled a "threat to national security" at the time of the alleged offences.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ex172rxwzo

What I don’t understand is why that is the case? It seems an oddly specific requirement. And the failure appears to be on the CPS not saying, “We need these exact words.”

AIUI and IANAE on this the original 1911 Official Secrets Act was focused on enemies of the state. Essentially, giving secrets to these enemies was a statutory form of treason. This meant that the prosecution had to prove that China was an enemy at the relevant time. This would effectively be certified by the government based on confidential and secret information. This is the witness statement that Starmer promised to release yesterday.

My understanding is that the initial statement was thought sufficient for these purposes. After that was made there was a Court of Appeal decision which specified more clearly what had to be said but also said ultimately this was not a matter for certification by the government but determination by the Jury. The deputy security chief, who had given the original statement, gave 2 more supplementary statements which I think we will find sought to address the requirements set out by the Court of Appeal. The view then seems to have been taken that they didn't and that the prosecution could not lead evidence that would entitle a jury properly instructed to reach that conclusion so the trial collapsed.

If all of this is right then the only political question is whether the author of the statements was pressured in any way to give statements that did not meet the relevant requirements. Starmer says not but then he also said that he wants to double check that.

And yes, this puts me in the 14% of saddos paying some attention.

a

If we get on the wrong side of China, they might stop selling us tat that we don't need.

What am I missing here?

It’s worse than that.

Their plan is to stop selling us things that we might really need, such as EV batteries, so they can instead sell us their cars by denying European and American manufacturers the batteries - because Europe and America don’t have the technology to produce the new improved batteries the Chinese are now making.

This is why Trump is talking about 100% tariffs on China, and other Western nations face the same dilemma.

There is of course a way forward - develop and manufacture batteries in the west.

MURICA - Batteries are ANTIFA
UK - Ah, Yes, Brugh, BRITVOLT, er, right, oh
EU - we want to make profit from the engines we already make

Electrification is here and it can't be stopped. What the rage baiters foaming on about EVs don't get is that most people don't care that much about cars. Offer them a new one thats easier to drive cheaper to maintain and more reliable and they'll take it. And they are, with EV sales continuing to rise.

ICE is on its way out, and China will rule the world unless the west wakes up and starts investing serious money.

And a reminder

1) A speech about building batteries isn’t building batteries.
2) A report on building batteries isn’t building batteries.
3) A policy on building batteries isn’t building batteries.

Building fuck off gigantic factories building batteries *is* building batteries.