LEGAL REQUEST
Sabotage of Nordstream2 Pipeline -
C. Williams made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Defence
-> HERE
"Dear Ministry of Defence,
It has recently been revealed by Jim Richards, via privilidged information from the US security community, that the UK was behind the recent sabotage of the Nordstream2 pipeline, with US approval. Such an act would be a clear violation of international law. Can the MOD now verify that this was indeed the case, and in doing so, explain to its citizens such as me, why I should be compelled to fund a criminal organisation? I would be very interested in hearing your justifications and seeing the responsible persons prosecuted and recieve jail time.
I look forward ot hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
C. Williams"
"Dear Ministry of Defence,
It has recently been revealed by Jim Richards, via privilidged information from the US security community, that the UK was behind the recent sabotage of the Nordstream2 pipeline, with US approval. Such an act would be a clear violation of international law. Can the MOD now verify that this was indeed the case, and in doing so, explain to its citizens such as me, why I should be compelled to fund a criminal organisation? I would be very interested in hearing your justifications and seeing the responsible persons prosecuted and recieve jail time.
I look forward ot hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
C. Williams"
ANSWER BY
Ministry of Defence
Main Building
Whitehall
London SW1A 2HB
United Kingdom
Ministry of Defence
Main Building
Whitehall
London SW1A 2HB
United Kingdom
-> HERE
Dear C Williams
Thank you for your email of 29 November requesting the following information:
It has recently been revealed by Jim Richards, via privilidged information from the US
security community, that the UK was behind the recent sabotage of the Nordstream2
pipeline, with US approval. Such an act would be a clear violation of international law.
Can the MOD now verify that this was indeed the case, and in doing so, explain to its
citizens such as me, why I should be compelled to fund a criminal organisation? I
would be very interested in hearing your justifications and seeing the responsible
persons prosecuted and recieve jail time.
I am treating your correspondence as a request for information under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOIA). I apologise for the delay in you receiving this response.
This letter is to inform you that the Ministry of Defence can neither confirm nor deny that
information related to your request is held, because we believe the information falls within the
scope of the following qualified exemptions: Section 24(2) (National Security), Section 26(3)
(Defence) and Section 27(4) (International Relations).
Sections 24, 26 and 27 are qualified exemptions and are subject to public interest testing which
means that the information requested can only be withheld if the public interest in doing so
outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Section 24(2) (National Security) has been applied to your request for information, which provides
an exemption from the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, where confirming or
denying that information of a given description would make the UK or its citizens more vulnerable
to a national security threat.
Dear C Williams
Thank you for your email of 29 November requesting the following information:
It has recently been revealed by Jim Richards, via privilidged information from the US
security community, that the UK was behind the recent sabotage of the Nordstream2
pipeline, with US approval. Such an act would be a clear violation of international law.
Can the MOD now verify that this was indeed the case, and in doing so, explain to its
citizens such as me, why I should be compelled to fund a criminal organisation? I
would be very interested in hearing your justifications and seeing the responsible
persons prosecuted and recieve jail time.
I am treating your correspondence as a request for information under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOIA). I apologise for the delay in you receiving this response.
This letter is to inform you that the Ministry of Defence can neither confirm nor deny that
information related to your request is held, because we believe the information falls within the
scope of the following qualified exemptions: Section 24(2) (National Security), Section 26(3)
(Defence) and Section 27(4) (International Relations).
Sections 24, 26 and 27 are qualified exemptions and are subject to public interest testing which
means that the information requested can only be withheld if the public interest in doing so
outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Section 24(2) (National Security) has been applied to your request for information, which provides
an exemption from the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, where confirming or
denying that information of a given description would make the UK or its citizens more vulnerable
to a national security threat.
For the purpose of this exemption, action against a foreign state may be capable indirectly of affecting the security of the UK. The public interest test found that confirmation or denial of whether the relevant information is held might increase public understanding and transparency of the UK’s response to the Russian invasion, support provided to Ukraine, and our relationship with Russia.
However, confirming or denying unsubstantiated accusations by unfriendly countries is likely to encourage further disinformation campaigns against the UK, potentially harming the security of the UK and its interests. The balance of the public interest was found to be in favour of engaging this exemption.
Section 26(3) has been applied to your request for information, which provides an exemption from
the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, where doing so would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the defence of the British Islands or of any colony, or the capability of, effectiveness or
security of any relevant forces. This can include the defence or reinforcement of other countries.
The public interest test found that confirmation of whether the relevant information is held would
increase public understanding and transparency of the UK’s response to the Russian invasion and
support provided to Ukraine. However, confirming or denying unsubstantiated accusations by
unfriendly countries is likely to encourage further disinformation campaigns against the UK,
potentially placing UK personnel at risk. The balance of the public interest was found to be in
favour of engaging this exemption.
Section 27(4) has been applied to your request for information, which provides an exemption from
the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, if doing so would or would be likely to
prejudice the relations between the United Kingdom and any other State, relations between the
United Kingdom and any international organisation or international court, and the interests of the
United Kingdom abroad. The public interest test found that there is naturally considerable public
interest in the events covered by your request and therefore an expectation of transparency
wherever possible. However, confirming or denying unsubstantiated accusations by unfriendly
countries is likely to encourage further disinformation campaigns against the UK, potentially
harming the UK’s relations with other nations. It could also encourage unfriendly countries to
engage in similar campaigns against the UK’s partners. The balance of the public interest was
found to be in favour of engaging this exemption.
Setting aside these exemptions, under Section 16 of the Act (Advice and Assistance) you may find
it helpful to note the UK’s position that the damage to the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the
Baltic Sea is of serious concern. Intentional damage to civilian infrastructure is reckless and
irresponsible. We await the findings of the ongoing Swedish/Danish/German-led investigations into
deliberate damage of the Nord Stream pipelines.
Section 26(3) has been applied to your request for information, which provides an exemption from
the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, where doing so would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the defence of the British Islands or of any colony, or the capability of, effectiveness or
security of any relevant forces. This can include the defence or reinforcement of other countries.
The public interest test found that confirmation of whether the relevant information is held would
increase public understanding and transparency of the UK’s response to the Russian invasion and
support provided to Ukraine. However, confirming or denying unsubstantiated accusations by
unfriendly countries is likely to encourage further disinformation campaigns against the UK,
potentially placing UK personnel at risk. The balance of the public interest was found to be in
favour of engaging this exemption.
Section 27(4) has been applied to your request for information, which provides an exemption from
the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, if doing so would or would be likely to
prejudice the relations between the United Kingdom and any other State, relations between the
United Kingdom and any international organisation or international court, and the interests of the
United Kingdom abroad. The public interest test found that there is naturally considerable public
interest in the events covered by your request and therefore an expectation of transparency
wherever possible. However, confirming or denying unsubstantiated accusations by unfriendly
countries is likely to encourage further disinformation campaigns against the UK, potentially
harming the UK’s relations with other nations. It could also encourage unfriendly countries to
engage in similar campaigns against the UK’s partners. The balance of the public interest was
found to be in favour of engaging this exemption.
Setting aside these exemptions, under Section 16 of the Act (Advice and Assistance) you may find
it helpful to note the UK’s position that the damage to the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the
Baltic Sea is of serious concern. Intentional damage to civilian infrastructure is reckless and
irresponsible. We await the findings of the ongoing Swedish/Danish/German-led investigations into
deliberate damage of the Nord Stream pipelines.
FURTHER INQUIERIES:
No comments:
Post a Comment