I was thinking yesterday that Sir Richard Dearlove has been playing a smarter political game than the politicians. Say Corbyn has sold secrets and you can expect to have to make a public apology. Stick to "there are questions to answer" and you are probably safe. There are questions to answer on everything from why the sky is blue to what idiot thought it a good idea to make such and such a road one way. "Having questions to answer" is so stunningly vague it says nothing and so is probably impossible to sue for libel, yet still somehow still encourages doubts

That article, on the other hand, could leave him open to letters from the lawyers, because he does make some factual charges that could be challenged.

I am not going to comment much on logical versus logistical. Cable's statement seems fine to me and as usual there are much bigger concerns than whether anyone used the perfect word. But yes, I was making a point. It was where will the line be drawn by each politician between self interest and national interest. It is worth keepong an eye on.