The case for and against Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson

So the "leaker" of classified information from the UK National Security Council meeting on Huawei has been found and sacked. The career of Gavin Williamson, Defence Secretary, is seemingly over. But there are some interesting question marks still? Williamson has adamantly denied leaking the information about the Government's decision to allow the Chinese company to provide its 5G technology to help build the next generation of telecommunications in this country. He was sacked because Theresa May told him there was "compelling" evidence that he was the leaker. "Compelling" is an interesting word. It implies that the evidence was pretty damn good and that it pointed in his direction. But if the evidence had been as we say "copper-bottomed" or as the police would say, "bang-to-rights", or as the Americans would say, "slam dunk", why didn't the prime minister tell Williamson the evidence was "overwhelming" or "unquestionable" or "so clear it could lead to his prosecution". Williamson handed over his phone and has bizarrely admitted to "friends" - in other words, he admitted it himself to journalists - that he had spoken to Steven Swinford, The Daily Telegraph deputy poliical editor who broke the leaked story on the same day as the National Security Council meeting. Williamson apparently spoke to him for 11 minutes. But he claims he never mentioned Huawei but spoke to the reporter about Brexit and the Tory leadership race. This is surely the "compelling" evidence Theresa May referred to. What I don't understand is that if the leak investigators had Williamson's phone then they would have been able not ony to trace the phone call to Swinford but get a full read-out of the conversation. The technology for that is available and pretty simple. And if there were complications, like encription, then either MI5's technology department or the massivey powerful GCHQ signals intelligence apparatus would have been able to provide a transcript of the conversation to Downing Street. So if Williamson insists he only spoke about Brexit and the Tory leadership, and the transcript reveals he not ony mentioned Huawei but provided details of the National Security Council meeting that filled the front page of The Daily Telegraph the following day, this would demonstrate beyond doubt that Williamson is lying and deserves to have been sacked and should face prosecution. But I don't think that can be the case. Otherwise Mrs May would have been able to say, "We have indisputable proof that Gavin Williamson leaked the Huawei story to The Daily Telegraph". On the other hand Whitehall moves in mysterious ways. Maybe Theresa didn't want to reveal that she had been able to listen to his conversation with Swinford because Britain was in the 21st century and actually had the ability to intercept people's phone conversations!!! So very typical of Whitehall. So that's maybe why Theresa May used the word "compelling". Either way it seems Williamson was bang to rights. In which case will the police move in and start investigating? Not if Downing Street has anything to do with it. But if Williamson is really innocent as he says he is then he should welcome a police investigation and the real leaker should start quivering in his/her boots.