...there's an awful lot of waffle in that, and conjecture based on a complete lack of any detail of the particular NDA in this case.
About the only pertinent thing that it states is that, regardless of any agreement, you can't put the cat back in the bag.
It was obvious from the off that the "public interest" card was going to be played if there was any kick-back, the phrase was incorporated in the very first release, but I'm with Z on this.
There is a Statutory Public Inquiry in place examining the matters to which the information directly relates. Either the information has/will be shared with that Inquiry, or it has been withheld.
If it has been/will be shared, selectively leaking part of it is wilful, and one questions the motive (frankly, the Telegraph is trying to shoehorn it into its "Lockdown Conspiracy" narrative, against which, at least IMO, it adds little or no support. In fact, if the Inquiry has the information, this action might be seen as prejudicial (and given the legal status of the Inquiry, I wonder if it could be deemed contempt)).
If it has been withheld, then there certainly is a "Public Interest" in disclosure, but in its whole to the Inquiry, not in edited form to the front page of the Telegraph.
The Telegraph seems to want to put this in the same context as its Commons expenses exposure - it isn't, by a long way.
I used to take the Telegraph, all UK newspapers have steadily gone downhill, but the Telegraph more than most, and it's now a contemptible rag.
|