Here are the cables the government said didn’t exist. Images from the report today.
A reminder to everyone that after broke the story about the 
mega-embassy cabling last Jan, government special advisors denied *all of it* and tried to rubbish his reputation to others in govt and Fleet Street. The was particularly bad.
Shamefully, they did the same when wrote about the risk posed to financial services months later.
MPs and Peers who raised concerns were dismissed. “We don’t recognise these reports” was the Ministerial refrain.
There have now been no fewer than TEN entirely independent media reports into the existence of these cables, and the risk of Chinese state proximity posed by them. This includes a BBC report, correctly asserting that Barclays Global HQ and BlackRock (and Deloitte) were housed *in the building* before the Chinese bought it.
Recall that Holmes’ first report was that *intelligence agencies had raised concerns about the cables during the first mega embassy application (2022)*. Given that these companies, obviously requiring access to high capacity financial infrastructure, were in the building, it stands to reason there would be concern regarding CCP interference in that infrastructure.
Still, the story was denied. It gets worse: senior US official was told in terms last August “there are no cables” by Foreign Office officials.
Only a month ago, following sustained pressure from other governments, the UK was forced to release a report to 5 Eyes partners detailing the risk posed by the cabling. “Nothing to see here” says the report.
Meanwhile it is clear that “mitigating” the cabling issue is itself problematic. The Chinese own the building, and permission will be required from them to excavate.
Re-routing them will cost the taxpayer many millions. Of course no details about this have been forthcoming from the government, which seems to think that the performative “the reports aren’t accurate, but we can’t tell you why because…national security” routine will be enough to deflect.
This has been a case study in executive obfuscation, made worse by truly disreputable attempts to smear the journalists exposing it.
I have a hard time believing that any UK government would treat our allies and press this way, just to avoid the inconvenience of upsetting the Chinese, but I am struggling to interpret it any other way.
mega-embassy cabling last Jan, government special advisors denied *all of it* and tried to rubbish his reputation to others in govt and Fleet Street. The was particularly bad.
Shamefully, they did the same when wrote about the risk posed to financial services months later.
MPs and Peers who raised concerns were dismissed. “We don’t recognise these reports” was the Ministerial refrain.
There have now been no fewer than TEN entirely independent media reports into the existence of these cables, and the risk of Chinese state proximity posed by them. This includes a BBC report, correctly asserting that Barclays Global HQ and BlackRock (and Deloitte) were housed *in the building* before the Chinese bought it.
Recall that Holmes’ first report was that *intelligence agencies had raised concerns about the cables during the first mega embassy application (2022)*. Given that these companies, obviously requiring access to high capacity financial infrastructure, were in the building, it stands to reason there would be concern regarding CCP interference in that infrastructure.
Still, the story was denied. It gets worse: senior US official was told in terms last August “there are no cables” by Foreign Office officials.
Only a month ago, following sustained pressure from other governments, the UK was forced to release a report to 5 Eyes partners detailing the risk posed by the cabling. “Nothing to see here” says the report.
Meanwhile it is clear that “mitigating” the cabling issue is itself problematic. The Chinese own the building, and permission will be required from them to excavate.
Re-routing them will cost the taxpayer many millions. Of course no details about this have been forthcoming from the government, which seems to think that the performative “the reports aren’t accurate, but we can’t tell you why because…national security” routine will be enough to deflect.
This has been a case study in executive obfuscation, made worse by truly disreputable attempts to smear the journalists exposing it.
I have a hard time believing that any UK government would treat our allies and press this way, just to avoid the inconvenience of upsetting the Chinese, but I am struggling to interpret it any other way.
