正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

The Chinese state does not merely pose just a challenge, it poses a threat It is therefore astonishing that charges over what appears to be extremely serious espionage - assessed by the Deputy National Security Advisor as being prejudicial to our national interests - have all of sudden been... show more

Chris Philp MP

41,364 subscribers

22,427 次观看 • 11 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术新闻政治

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Speaking in the Chamber today on the Official Secrets Act, I raised deep concern over the decision to drop charges against two individuals accused of espionage for China. As someone sanctioned and targeted by the Chinese Government, I was briefed at the outset that this was a “slam-dunk” prosecution — they were clear that they had met every single requirement within the Official Secrets Act about passing secure information to the Chinese intelligence agency that would be “directly or indirectly" useful to the Chinese state. That is very clear. It cannot, therefore, be for a lack of evidence that this has been dropped by the CPS, so why has the case been abandoned? The issue lies in how the Act defines an “enemy”. After the China audit, the Labour Government had the chance to put China in the same upper tier as Russia, North Korea and Iran — but chose not to. Ministers call China a “challenge”, not a threat. That position is indefensible. The Minister speaks of threats, but he does not say that China is a threat; he says it is a “challenge”, which is a ludicrous position to take. This decision has let down Parliament and, indeed, Mr Speaker himself, who stood up for Members targeted by Beijing. Until China is recognised for what it is — a persistent threat to individuals and states — our national security will remain compromised, and our reputation weakened as a strong state against terrorism.

Speaking in the Chamber today on the Official Secrets Act, I raised deep concern over the decision to drop charges against two individuals accused of espionage for China. As someone sanctioned and targeted by the Chinese Government, I was briefed at the outset that this was a “slam-dunk” prosecution — they were clear that they had met every single requirement within the Official Secrets Act about passing secure information to the Chinese intelligence agency that would be “directly or indirectly" useful to the Chinese state. That is very clear. It cannot, therefore, be for a lack of evidence that this has been dropped by the CPS, so why has the case been abandoned? The issue lies in how the Act defines an “enemy”. After the China audit, the Labour Government had the chance to put China in the same upper tier as Russia, North Korea and Iran — but chose not to. Ministers call China a “challenge”, not a threat. That position is indefensible. The Minister speaks of threats, but he does not say that China is a threat; he says it is a “challenge”, which is a ludicrous position to take. This decision has let down Parliament and, indeed, Mr Speaker himself, who stood up for Members targeted by Beijing. Until China is recognised for what it is — a persistent threat to individuals and states — our national security will remain compromised, and our reputation weakened as a strong state against terrorism.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

80,556 次观看 • 11 个月前

Today I set out deep concerns about how the Government has handled decisions and communications surrounding the recent China spying case and the question of whether China poses a threat to the UK’s national security. The Government has made it difficult to obtain clear information about the timeline of meetings and the reasoning behind official statements. The Government’s approach has been evasive and inconsistent, with denials later giving way to partial admissions. This lack of transparency has eroded confidence and made it harder to get to the truth. At the heart of the issue is the role of the Deputy National Security Adviser (DNSA), who told Parliament that he was simply reflecting the Government’s position when asked whether China poses an active national security threat. I argued that this is not good enough. The question was a straightforward one, and the answer should have been equally straightforward: China does pose a threat to the UK’s national security across multiple fronts, from espionage and cyberattacks to sanctions and disinformation. I raised concerns about the meeting on 1 Sept, which appears to contradict earlier statements by the Prime Minister that no further evidence or discussions took place after that date. If such a meeting did occur with senior security officials present, the Government should release the minutes, at the very least to the Intelligence and Security Committee, to clarify what was discussed. I called for honesty and clarity in how the UK defines and responds to threats from China. Those of us who have been sanctioned and targeted by the Chinese state know first-hand how that threat manifests. The Government must stop obfuscating and start treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves: by acknowledging the reality of the threat, being transparent with Parliament and the public, and taking firm, decisive action to protect our national security.

Today I set out deep concerns about how the Government has handled decisions and communications surrounding the recent China spying case and the question of whether China poses a threat to the UK’s national security. The Government has made it difficult to obtain clear information about the timeline of meetings and the reasoning behind official statements. The Government’s approach has been evasive and inconsistent, with denials later giving way to partial admissions. This lack of transparency has eroded confidence and made it harder to get to the truth. At the heart of the issue is the role of the Deputy National Security Adviser (DNSA), who told Parliament that he was simply reflecting the Government’s position when asked whether China poses an active national security threat. I argued that this is not good enough. The question was a straightforward one, and the answer should have been equally straightforward: China does pose a threat to the UK’s national security across multiple fronts, from espionage and cyberattacks to sanctions and disinformation. I raised concerns about the meeting on 1 Sept, which appears to contradict earlier statements by the Prime Minister that no further evidence or discussions took place after that date. If such a meeting did occur with senior security officials present, the Government should release the minutes, at the very least to the Intelligence and Security Committee, to clarify what was discussed. I called for honesty and clarity in how the UK defines and responds to threats from China. Those of us who have been sanctioned and targeted by the Chinese state know first-hand how that threat manifests. The Government must stop obfuscating and start treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves: by acknowledging the reality of the threat, being transparent with Parliament and the public, and taking firm, decisive action to protect our national security.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

17,641 次观看 • 9 个月前

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.

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.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

70,473 次观看 • 10 个月前

CHINA SPY SCANDAL: Govt admit to me that China IS a National Security Threat So why did they not tell the Crown Prosecution Service, to allow the case to proceed?

CHINA SPY SCANDAL: Govt admit to me that China IS a National Security Threat So why did they not tell the Crown Prosecution Service, to allow the case to proceed?

Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧

44,484 次观看 • 10 个月前

Minister Dan Jarvis MP explicitly denies the involvement of government. His defence appears to rest upon the (dubious) need for the Tory government to have explicitly labelled China a threat. The case law didn’t require it, CPS was clear.

Minister Dan Jarvis MP explicitly denies the involvement of government. His defence appears to rest upon the (dubious) need for the Tory government to have explicitly labelled China a threat. The case law didn’t require it, CPS was clear.

Luke de Pulford

41,742 次观看 • 10 个月前

The American government created a government agency with the sole intention of destroying families and trafficking children. Sorry, America, you are not voting your way out of this one. This country sits by and does nothing while 480,000 children are kidnapped by CPS every year, even after an internal CPS audit in 2019 proved that 83% of the time, CPS separates a child from its parents. CPS did not have justified cause to do so.

The American government created a government agency with the sole intention of destroying families and trafficking children. Sorry, America, you are not voting your way out of this one. This country sits by and does nothing while 480,000 children are kidnapped by CPS every year, even after an internal CPS audit in 2019 proved that 83% of the time, CPS separates a child from its parents. CPS did not have justified cause to do so.

RyanMatta 🇺🇸 🦅

14,967 次观看 • 3 个月前

“The Aircraft that landed on a concrete road in Asaba about 4 weeks ago did not have any technical issue. It landed on the road, dropped its passengers, turned back and headed back to Lagos. Immediately the matter was reported to the DSS and all involved persons have been arrested, detained and facing legal action. It is being treated as a National security threat”. — Festus Keyamo, Aviation Minister.

“The Aircraft that landed on a concrete road in Asaba about 4 weeks ago did not have any technical issue. It landed on the road, dropped its passengers, turned back and headed back to Lagos. Immediately the matter was reported to the DSS and all involved persons have been arrested, detained and facing legal action. It is being treated as a National security threat”. — Festus Keyamo, Aviation Minister.

Osas

209,855 次观看 • 1 个月前

Tulsi Gabbard is a threat to national security, say Senators close to the Intelligence Community. She's not. She's a threat to the most corrupt people in the Intel Community. We must defend Gabbard's nomination as though our freedom depends on it, because it does.

Tulsi Gabbard is a threat to national security, say Senators close to the Intelligence Community. She's not. She's a threat to the most corrupt people in the Intel Community. We must defend Gabbard's nomination as though our freedom depends on it, because it does.

Michael Shellenberger

1,131,978 次观看 • 1 年前

A difficult question for Rutte: You've strongly emphasized the ongoing and constant threat Russia poses to Europe, but you've also mentioned that Russia is also a threat to the United States. On the other hand, the most recent National Security Strategy published by the White House doesn't even call Russia a threat. On the contrary, it states that we want to stabilize relations with Russia. This stands in stark contrast to the outcome of the Hague Summit, which identified Russia as the main threat to NATO. How, as NATO Secretary General, do you plan to reconcile these two positions? And have you already discussed the content of the National Security Strategy and these two opposing approaches to Russia with President Trump? Rutte did not answer the question. Rutte believes that NATO protects the United States. I believe Trump has said the opposite.

A difficult question for Rutte: You've strongly emphasized the ongoing and constant threat Russia poses to Europe, but you've also mentioned that Russia is also a threat to the United States. On the other hand, the most recent National Security Strategy published by the White House doesn't even call Russia a threat. On the contrary, it states that we want to stabilize relations with Russia. This stands in stark contrast to the outcome of the Hague Summit, which identified Russia as the main threat to NATO. How, as NATO Secretary General, do you plan to reconcile these two positions? And have you already discussed the content of the National Security Strategy and these two opposing approaches to Russia with President Trump? Rutte did not answer the question. Rutte believes that NATO protects the United States. I believe Trump has said the opposite.

Victor vicktop55 commentary

49,017 次观看 • 8 个月前

France's Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot: Lebanon was once again drawn into a war it did not choose. The Lebanese people are exasperated. They have paid an extremely heavy price for a conflict they did not want. This agreement provides for a cessation of hostilities. The Israeli government must respect it, and the United States, in particular, must exert all the necessary pressure on the Israeli government to ensure that it does.

France's Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot: Lebanon was once again drawn into a war it did not choose. The Lebanese people are exasperated. They have paid an extremely heavy price for a conflict they did not want. This agreement provides for a cessation of hostilities. The Israeli government must respect it, and the United States, in particular, must exert all the necessary pressure on the Israeli government to ensure that it does.

Clash Report

14,331 次观看 • 1 个月前

U.S. House Speaker Mike Turner says all members of Congress have been given access to information about a "serious national security threat" He asks Biden to "declassify all information so that Congress, the administration, and allies can openly discuss the actions necessary to respond to this threat." Sullivan, the U.S. president's national security adviser, said he would personally brief U.S. congressional leaders on the topic Thursday. He did not give details. What could it be? Iran, China, or an alien invasion?

U.S. House Speaker Mike Turner says all members of Congress have been given access to information about a "serious national security threat" He asks Biden to "declassify all information so that Congress, the administration, and allies can openly discuss the actions necessary to respond to this threat." Sullivan, the U.S. president's national security adviser, said he would personally brief U.S. congressional leaders on the topic Thursday. He did not give details. What could it be? Iran, China, or an alien invasion?

NEXTA

605,986 次观看 • 2 年前

The Presidency says one man allegedly created a fake federal agency. It found its way into the national budget. It received public funds from a budget signed by the President. It operated from the Federal Secretariat. It met National Assembly leaders. It even engaged foreign ambassadors. Today, Nigerians are being told the agency never existed. If that is true, this is no longer just about fraud. It is a national security failure. This is either a lie or a national security disaster that reflects the current state of our intelligence and oversight administration. Think about what it means. An entity that allegedly did not exist was able to pass through layers of government without anyone stopping it. If the institutions at the centre of power could not detect it, how are they expected to stop terrorists, bring our school children home safely from abductors, fend off organised criminal networks or foreign actors exploiting the same weaknesses? This goes beyond one individual. It exposes a state whose oversight systems may have failed at multiple levels. Nigeria does not have only a corruption problem. It has an institutional problem. There has to be accountability. There has to be reform. Where failures are established, people should be held responsible. This should also trigger a serious national conversation about fixing the systems meant to protect the state before the next breach is even worse.

The Presidency says one man allegedly created a fake federal agency. It found its way into the national budget. It received public funds from a budget signed by the President. It operated from the Federal Secretariat. It met National Assembly leaders. It even engaged foreign ambassadors. Today, Nigerians are being told the agency never existed. If that is true, this is no longer just about fraud. It is a national security failure. This is either a lie or a national security disaster that reflects the current state of our intelligence and oversight administration. Think about what it means. An entity that allegedly did not exist was able to pass through layers of government without anyone stopping it. If the institutions at the centre of power could not detect it, how are they expected to stop terrorists, bring our school children home safely from abductors, fend off organised criminal networks or foreign actors exploiting the same weaknesses? This goes beyond one individual. It exposes a state whose oversight systems may have failed at multiple levels. Nigeria does not have only a corruption problem. It has an institutional problem. There has to be accountability. There has to be reform. Where failures are established, people should be held responsible. This should also trigger a serious national conversation about fixing the systems meant to protect the state before the next breach is even worse.

Ahmad Salkida

77,842 次观看 • 1 个月前

“The statements of Nasir el-Rufai are not gestural; he wasn't guessing. He made very specific statements declaring that the communication line of the NSA is tapped, declaring even more convincingly that it is only the government that has the capacity to do that. It's an encroachment on the infrastructure of national security; therefore, that makes you a potential, if not active, threat to national security.”

“The statements of Nasir el-Rufai are not gestural; he wasn't guessing. He made very specific statements declaring that the communication line of the NSA is tapped, declaring even more convincingly that it is only the government that has the capacity to do that. It's an encroachment on the infrastructure of national security; therefore, that makes you a potential, if not active, threat to national security.”

Ayekooto

41,526 次观看 • 6 个月前

WATCH: Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir: With all his love for the State of Israel, Trump will not have to answer to the residents or to the public. My son is in Lebanon today—not Trump's son. Therefore, I say there is a red line.

WATCH: Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir: With all his love for the State of Israel, Trump will not have to answer to the residents or to the public. My son is in Lebanon today—not Trump's son. Therefore, I say there is a red line.

Clash Report

53,657 次观看 • 1 个月前

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan: I want to make it very clear that Israel’s actions in Syria should not first be presented or identified within the perspective of Turkish security concerns. It is violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a nation-state called Syria, and it is occupying it. It is a major national security threat for Syria, just as it is a national security threat for Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza. Therefore, I think all the Arab countries, the Muslim countries, the regional countries, the Europeans, and everybody else should come together and confront this policy.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan: I want to make it very clear that Israel’s actions in Syria should not first be presented or identified within the perspective of Turkish security concerns. It is violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a nation-state called Syria, and it is occupying it. It is a major national security threat for Syria, just as it is a national security threat for Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza. Therefore, I think all the Arab countries, the Muslim countries, the regional countries, the Europeans, and everybody else should come together and confront this policy.

Clash Report

69,591 次观看 • 3 个月前

Today I questioned the Solicitor General about the Attorney General’s role in the collapse of the China spy prosecution. Throughout this saga there have been conflicting accounts about who did what, and why decisions were taken. The rules are clear, the Attorney General must be consulted on politically sensitive matters. That doesn’t compromise their independence, it ensures they are informed at the time. We understand from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Attorney General must have been told there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. If that’s the case, the Attorney General’s duty was to warn the Government that unless they provided more evidence, the case would collapse. So my question: Did the Attorney General say to the Government, “You are not providing enough evidence to secure a prosecution. It is over to you to do as you have been asked by the DPP”? We deserve to know whether that warning was given, and if it was given, why it was ignored.

Today I questioned the Solicitor General about the Attorney General’s role in the collapse of the China spy prosecution. Throughout this saga there have been conflicting accounts about who did what, and why decisions were taken. The rules are clear, the Attorney General must be consulted on politically sensitive matters. That doesn’t compromise their independence, it ensures they are informed at the time. We understand from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Attorney General must have been told there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. If that’s the case, the Attorney General’s duty was to warn the Government that unless they provided more evidence, the case would collapse. So my question: Did the Attorney General say to the Government, “You are not providing enough evidence to secure a prosecution. It is over to you to do as you have been asked by the DPP”? We deserve to know whether that warning was given, and if it was given, why it was ignored.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

26,897 次观看 • 9 个月前

Is it me being a cynic or is what the government did in the early hours of this morning off the scale cynical. A good day to bury bad news. They 100% did this deliberately, no way is this just a coincidence. They chose this moment knowing the media would not cover it😡

Is it me being a cynic or is what the government did in the early hours of this morning off the scale cynical. A good day to bury bad news. They 100% did this deliberately, no way is this just a coincidence. They chose this moment knowing the media would not cover it😡

JohnHann0404🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

157,381 次观看 • 10 个月前

“When did Jonathan Powell travel to Port Louis, was it prior to his appointment as the PM’s Special Envoy and what security clearance did he have when he saw the Chagos deal for the first time?” Jonathan Powell, the current National Security Advisor saw the Chagos deal in August 2024, prior to his appointment as the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory. What security clearance did he have? Correspondence between Powell and the FCDO was being conducted over insecure email. Powell himself was allegedly still working in China for his Inter Mediate consultancy whilst privy to discussions on the detail of the deal. Meanwhile the Government refuses to face scrutiny and answer any Named Day Written Parliamentary Questions. The Government sent the wrong minister to the Chagos Islands UQ and Hamish Falconer floundered his way through it; a truly terrible appearance at the Despatch Box. What is it about the Chagos Islands deal that this Government is trying so hard to conceal?

“When did Jonathan Powell travel to Port Louis, was it prior to his appointment as the PM’s Special Envoy and what security clearance did he have when he saw the Chagos deal for the first time?” Jonathan Powell, the current National Security Advisor saw the Chagos deal in August 2024, prior to his appointment as the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory. What security clearance did he have? Correspondence between Powell and the FCDO was being conducted over insecure email. Powell himself was allegedly still working in China for his Inter Mediate consultancy whilst privy to discussions on the detail of the deal. Meanwhile the Government refuses to face scrutiny and answer any Named Day Written Parliamentary Questions. The Government sent the wrong minister to the Chagos Islands UQ and Hamish Falconer floundered his way through it; a truly terrible appearance at the Despatch Box. What is it about the Chagos Islands deal that this Government is trying so hard to conceal?

Ben Obese-Jecty MP

27,409 次观看 • 5 个月前

Powerful stuff from Kemi Badenoch today. She is the prime minister we need. While the Conservatives spoke about serious matters of national security, all Labour MPs did was laugh. We have a weak Labour government, who are clearly not fit to lead this country.

Powerful stuff from Kemi Badenoch today. She is the prime minister we need. While the Conservatives spoke about serious matters of national security, all Labour MPs did was laugh. We have a weak Labour government, who are clearly not fit to lead this country.

Kevin Edger

24,860 次观看 • 4 个月前