> qualities you describe hardly meet the bare minimum of what the public should expect from an editor.
Or from head of MI5, head of Civil Service, Attourney Generals, Prime Minister.
There is a lot unknown here, but I think you are assuming he allowed the destruction so that it could not be proven they had it in the first place (making him safer).
There are other explanations - including a desire not to let UK courts have jurisdication over his sources. He is moving the entire reporting to NY - thats a pretty clear indication of his thinking. Choose your jury wisely.
He has removed himself and any reporter not based in New York. He knows the strength of the first amendment in US courts, National Security letters or not.
No UK reporter will do any work on surveillance any more, simply because the UK has too much power over the press when it really wants to. Going to court in the US gives him a near certain win, going to court in the UK a near certain loss.
To paraphrase Napoleon: I would rather have a clever editor than a brave one, and a lucky editor than a clever one. He got lucky with the UK destroying the disks in a heavy handed manner.
Or from head of MI5, head of Civil Service, Attourney Generals, Prime Minister.
There is a lot unknown here, but I think you are assuming he allowed the destruction so that it could not be proven they had it in the first place (making him safer).
There are other explanations - including a desire not to let UK courts have jurisdication over his sources. He is moving the entire reporting to NY - thats a pretty clear indication of his thinking. Choose your jury wisely.