Is it me or is Boris looking better than Rishi right now on the COVID hoo hah
"A source has told LBC 'chaotic' Covid papers from Boris Johnson, due to be handed to the Covid inquiry, consisted of 'random post-it notes & newspaper cuttings', writes @HenryRiley1"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Potentially more than that. And they all need not just to be read, but also considered for relevance., and cross-referenced with other information to look for inconsistencies.
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
Let’s cross our fingers that the High Court agrees.
Every country needs a system of justice and its people to see justice done. The government have set themselves against this principle.
If there is any belief in fairness and democracy at all left at the Daily Mail, tomorrows front page needs to be the mug shots of Sunak and his cabinet, with the headline - enemies of the people.
Every government also needs secrets; as do individuals. Again, there is a balance.
Yet again the Enquiry head must decide these things, not the politicians and civil servants under investigation.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
I don't know, that would have been up to the investigating detectives. If you don't believe the investigation was rigerous enough you need to address your complaint to Durham Constabulary not me.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I haven't made your point for you.
I am quite comfortable with the Beergate investigation. You are not. You must demand the case is reopened and this time Starmer's guilt is tested in court.
Perhaps for balance the Met should investigate the 5 parties Johnson attended where minions were prosecuted but they didn't pursue Johnson at all.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Surely it's as simple as creating an unencrypted backup and handing over the resulting file?
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
Reports say Boris did say that at one point.
Is that a failing of Boris, or the government scientists rubbish for not making the seriousness clear enough to him nearly quickly enough.
He was wandering around hospitals shaking hands with people remember.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Oh they'll hit, but there is a reason why Russian warheads tend to be so huge, the accuracy of the missiles and terminal guidance is terrible. US warheads have typically gotten smaller over time, as the accuracy is crazy good, even hard targets are likely to be killed with a single hit nowadays. There was a fusing upgrade for Trident a few years back that was estimated to triple the probability of a warhead killing a hard target.
It doesn't take too much brain power to figure out that comparing missile, warhead, and yield numbers is misleading. The US has a bigger punch that it appears, Russia the reverse.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Sky says Johnson said there are 40 WhatsApp messages
40 - we do thar a day within the family !!!!
Mind you that is from May 21 not the ones before apparently lost in space !!!!
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Surely it's as simple as creating an unencrypted backup and handing over the resulting file?
Whatsapp dont have the encryption keys hence the name end to end encryption. They cannot decrypt the messages
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
I think they’re more likely to spectacularly fuck up if they’re terrified to communicate.
You end up with Theresa May-type characters proliferating.
On the contrary, I think 'act like this is going to be read by the public' is a good way to run Government. We need high standards in public life.
It's a good baseline to work from. Of course we know politicians and governments seek ways around disclosing things, but that doesn't undermine the principal.
Besides, it's not generally suggested any private communications should be immediately and always accessible as a matter of course. Even public communications might be accessible but that doesn't mean automatic immediate release.
But if you are undertaking inquiries the inquiry has to see what went on and what was said, and if you have intermingled communications it is absurd to suggest the inquiry must simply accept a ruling that X is relevant and Y is not. The inquiry at least has to make that call, otherwise they are not inquiring, they are just looking at pre-approved information which may well direct them to a certain direction, intentionally or otherwise.
Actually many governments are arguing that private conversations should be available
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Potentially more than that. And they all need not just to be read, but also considered for relevance., and cross-referenced with other information to look for inconsistencies.
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
I think the IT is against you on this one as well.
Start with emails. Not every email will be saved, when you just save the last one, the thread as the record.
Things that are paper are quickly digitised and searched through with OCR.
It won’t take that long for an enquiry to go through the whats apps, nor all the digital records. They will have search tools available for every record they receive.
The US Air Force tested an AI enabled drone that was tasked to destroy specific targets. A human operator had the power to override the drone—and so the drone decided that the human operator was an obstacle to its mission—and attacked him. https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1664331870564147200
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
I don't know, that would have been up to the investigating detectives. If you don't believe the investigation was rigerous enough you need to address your complaint to Durham Constabulary not me.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I haven't made your point for you.
I am quite comfortable with the Beergate investigation. You are not. You must demand the case is reopened and this time Starmer's guilt is tested in court.
Perhaps for balance the Met should investigate the 5 parties Johnson attended where minions were prosecuted but they didn't pursue Johnson at all.
You do realise that you make this sound like a political witch-hunt, rather than an unbiased attempt to get at the truth?
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
I think they’re more likely to spectacularly fuck up if they’re terrified to communicate.
You end up with Theresa May-type characters proliferating.
On the contrary, I think 'act like this is going to be read by the public' is a good way to run Government. We need high standards in public life.
It's a good baseline to work from. Of course we know politicians and governments seek ways around disclosing things, but that doesn't undermine the principal.
Besides, it's not generally suggested any private communications should be immediately and always accessible as a matter of course. Even public communications might be accessible but that doesn't mean automatic immediate release.
But if you are undertaking inquiries the inquiry has to see what went on and what was said, and if you have intermingled communications it is absurd to suggest the inquiry must simply accept a ruling that X is relevant and Y is not. The inquiry at least has to make that call, otherwise they are not inquiring, they are just looking at pre-approved information which may well direct them to a certain direction, intentionally or otherwise.
Actually many governments are arguing that private conversations should be available
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Fairly banged to rights by the Pagan. I'll apologise, but only when you learn to use an apostrophe.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Surely it's as simple as creating an unencrypted backup and handing over the resulting file?
Whatsapp dont have the encryption keys hence the name end to end encryption. They cannot decrypt the messages
I think we're talking at cross purposes. Yes, end-to-end encryption makes it impossible to intercept messages, but it doesn't stop the recipient from making and unencrypted copy of the messages he or she has received. Failing that, they could just ask Boris to video himself scrolling through his messages!
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
Reports say Boris did say that at one point.
Is that a failing of Boris, or the government scientists rubbish for not making the seriousness clear enough to him nearly quickly enough.
He was wandering around hospitals shaking hands with people remember.
Again I say, is that Boris fault? You have to blame the scientists for being too slow to influence.
Is it me or is Boris looking better than Rishi right now on the COVID hoo hah
"A source has told LBC 'chaotic' Covid papers from Boris Johnson, due to be handed to the Covid inquiry, consisted of 'random post-it notes & newspaper cuttings', writes @HenryRiley1"
Have you never jotted reactions/thoughts on newspaper articles, or written on post-it notes?
No, I don't think I have.
If you have typical doctor's handwriting, it'll all be illegible anyway.
But seriously: you've never used a post-it note?
Not for anything other than marking pages in a file, or leaving a note to get more milk etc. For the simple reason that they fall off.
Ah, but those might be of relevance to the inquiry! And you don't know what pages were marked. You've destroyed the evidence, as the sections you marked might have given insights to your thoughts! And why were you going out for milk during the lockdown?
That's the sort of madness we're looking at.
I use post-it notes all the time; and from many tech places I;ve been into, so do many other people. Very useful for writing short aide-memoires.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
Let’s cross our fingers that the High Court agrees.
Every country needs a system of justice and its people to see justice done. The government have set themselves against this principle.
If there is any belief in fairness and democracy at all left at the Daily Mail, tomorrows front page needs to be the mug shots of Sunak and his cabinet, with the headline - enemies of the people.
Every government also needs secrets; as do individuals. Again, there is a balance.
Your defence makes no sense. If there is WhatsApp evidence of criminality, for example PPE irregularities, surely you would like to know how your money was spent, what happened and who was involved. And if someone should be banged to rights they can't be allowed to withhold damning evidence against them.
Absolutely but at the same time irrelevant information from politicians and civil servants should be filtered out
You would expect the enquiry judge would do that, but as has been said there is so much to read through it would require a team and of course the risk of a leak of compromising information irrelevant to the enquiry increases, indeed we have seen leaks of questions already asked to Johnson
It is a mess but then that sums up covid
Come on BigG. It's all a game being played by Johnson, and he's winning on points against Sunak after round 1.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
Where does the balance lie between openness to the inquiry and the necessity of government and personal secrecy?
Politicians and officials need to use one type of communication for official business and another for personal business, and not mix the two.
Indeed. But that's not the whole issue. What about when the same official message covers various official matters? What you're saying is that every message should only ever pertain to one matter, which frankly is impossible.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
I think they’re more likely to spectacularly fuck up if they’re terrified to communicate.
You end up with Theresa May-type characters proliferating.
On the contrary, I think 'act like this is going to be read by the public' is a good way to run Government. We need high standards in public life.
It's a good baseline to work from. Of course we know politicians and governments seek ways around disclosing things, but that doesn't undermine the principal.
Besides, it's not generally suggested any private communications should be immediately and always accessible as a matter of course. Even public communications might be accessible but that doesn't mean automatic immediate release.
But if you are undertaking inquiries the inquiry has to see what went on and what was said, and if you have intermingled communications it is absurd to suggest the inquiry must simply accept a ruling that X is relevant and Y is not. The inquiry at least has to make that call, otherwise they are not inquiring, they are just looking at pre-approved information which may well direct them to a certain direction, intentionally or otherwise.
Actually many governments are arguing that private conversations should be available
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Sky says Johnson said there are 40 WhatsApp messages
40 - we do thar a day within the family !!!!
Mind you that is from May 21 not the ones before apparently lost in space !!!!
Takes us a month to get anywhere near that. Even when we’ve got someone in hospital!
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Potentially more than that. And they all need not just to be read, but also considered for relevance., and cross-referenced with other information to look for inconsistencies.
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
I think the IT is against you on this one as well.
Start with emails. Not every email will be saved, when you just save the last one, the thread as the record.
Things that are paper are quickly digitised and searched through with OCR.
It won’t take that long for an enquiry to go through the whats apps, nor all the digital records. They will have search tools available for every record they receive.
Seems more an argument that all governement business be over government networks where all communication can be stored and retrieved. No this does not mean building a new system. Plenty of systems already available they could use for email and whats app alike stuff which would allow message archiving.
Anyone using channels of electronic communication for government business outside that make it mandatory 20 years in prison
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
The inquiry isn’t going to release material to the public if it’s not relevant . Why on earth would anyone believe anything that comes out of no 10 given recent history . The judge should be allowed to decide what is or is not relevant .
The 'inquiry' may not. But can you guarantee there will not be leaks, given the vast scope of the data and the *very* political nature?
So there mere possibility of leaks means sensitive information cannot be provided in confidence to the Chairman and key officials?
That does not seem a proportionate response - it again begs the question that if that is the only way to protect that information, then there really is no point to such inquiries where overlapping information is nigh on inevitable.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
Reports say Boris did say that at one point.
Is that a failing of Boris, or the government scientists rubbish for not making the seriousness clear enough to him nearly quickly enough.
He was wandering around hospitals shaking hands with people remember.
Again I say, is that Boris fault? You have to blame the scientists for being too slow to influence.
Like saying "Don't stick your hand in the furnace - it's dangerous.".
"I've stuck my hand in the furnace - now it's all burned. This is your fault."?
He shouldn’t be putting himself through this. It’s not right. He clearly feels the need to prove the doubters wrong by risking himself.
It’s excruciating to watch.
Don’t fall into the same trap, bigG.
Take care of yourself. Falls are a big risk for everyone, once we’re in our 70’s+.
Sorry if I’m being a bit personal, there. I’m aware of the risk, particularly, due to an elderly relative.
You are so kind, but I have had the odd tumble not least falling into a large bush in our garden which gently lowered me into its core leaving just the soles of my shoes on the path. My wife panicked but when she saw me emerge with lots of leaves here, there and everywhere but no blood she collapsed laughing
To be fair I have recently fitted staircase handrails for both of us and when you know you are susceptible to a fall, you do take more care
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Fairly banged to rights by the Pagan. I'll apologise, but only when you learn to use an apostrophe.
I am too poor to be able to afford a keyboard with apostrophes
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
I think they’re more likely to spectacularly fuck up if they’re terrified to communicate.
You end up with Theresa May-type characters proliferating.
On the contrary, I think 'act like this is going to be read by the public' is a good way to run Government. We need high standards in public life.
It's a good baseline to work from. Of course we know politicians and governments seek ways around disclosing things, but that doesn't undermine the principal.
Besides, it's not generally suggested any private communications should be immediately and always accessible as a matter of course. Even public communications might be accessible but that doesn't mean automatic immediate release.
But if you are undertaking inquiries the inquiry has to see what went on and what was said, and if you have intermingled communications it is absurd to suggest the inquiry must simply accept a ruling that X is relevant and Y is not. The inquiry at least has to make that call, otherwise they are not inquiring, they are just looking at pre-approved information which may well direct them to a certain direction, intentionally or otherwise.
Actually many governments are arguing that private conversations should be available
Manufacturing UKs inflation busting recession is coming along nicely. Ordinarily, downturn data wouldn’t be best followed with by yet another interest rate rise.
I also would not expect a house price correction without stock market pressures. Let’s be careful how we are investing until UK economy is out of the woods.
Demand for manufactured product is weakening globally. It is not just in the UK. Yes, where I work we are feeling it and we have just allowed people to apply for severance, not terming it redundancy, on signing a compromise agreement. We have had quite a take up in manufacturing. Our forward order book for the second half of the year, compared to last year, shows a marked decline.
One of the main reasons we are being told by marketing and sales is our customers simply overstocked when COVID came along and maintained those stock levels during extended lead times. Lead times are back to normal so stock is being run down.
We expect an upturn in the new Year.
I know what you are saying. I look in my purse before going to Waitrose and there’s not much in there. I open the cupboard and have 8 tins of beans, so I don’t need to buy tins of beans today.
On what grounds expecting the upturn in new year, not much before or much later?
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Surely it's as simple as creating an unencrypted backup and handing over the resulting file?
Whatsapp dont have the encryption keys hence the name end to end encryption. They cannot decrypt the messages
If only In-Q-Tel had had more foresight. I told the CIA to be careful.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Replied to wrong message
You need to be careful about falls. I had one about a year ago and I’ve hardly walked properly or unaided since.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Surely it's as simple as creating an unencrypted backup and handing over the resulting file?
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
I dont have any problem with them being able to do that with relative confidence. But if you are undertaking a public inquiry things that normally wouldn't be accessible (at least not so soon) will become so, that's inevitable.
The issue is the balancing of what the inquiry needs to know in order to meaningfully do the job it was set up for. If that job is pretty broad, you simply cannot have people with a very strong vested interest deciding what it should get to see about those communications without undermining its purpose.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Fairly banged to rights by the Pagan. I'll apologise, but only when you learn to use an apostrophe.
I am too poor to be able to afford a keyboard with apostrophes
The US Air Force tested an AI enabled drone that was tasked to destroy specific targets. A human operator had the power to override the drone—and so the drone decided that the human operator was an obstacle to its mission—and attacked him. https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1664331870564147200
Yeah - but if gave me a fairly decent recipe for stuffed peppers earlier today. Swings and roundabouts...
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Surely it's as simple as creating an unencrypted backup and handing over the resulting file?
Whatsapp dont have the encryption keys hence the name end to end encryption. They cannot decrypt the messages
If only In-Q-Tel had had more foresight. I told the CIA to be careful. Seriously, you must be living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or he might just understand encryption better than you.
The US Air Force tested an AI enabled drone that was tasked to destroy specific targets. A human operator had the power to override the drone—and so the drone decided that the human operator was an obstacle to its mission—and attacked him. https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1664331870564147200
Yeah - but if gave me a fairly decent recipe for stuffed peppers earlier today. Swings and roundabouts...
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
Reports say Boris did say that at one point.
Is that a failing of Boris, or the government scientists rubbish for not making the seriousness clear enough to him nearly quickly enough.
He was wandering around hospitals shaking hands with people remember.
Again I say, is that Boris fault? You have to blame the scientists for being too slow to influence.
Like saying "Don't stick your hand in the furnace - it's dangerous.".
"I've stuck my hand in the furnace - now it's all burned. This is your fault."?
Just like that - but being told don’t put your hand in furnace before you do is the important bit when it goes to court or the enquiry. I’m accusing you of making assumptions how Boris was quickly briefed by the scientists. They are the subject matter experts. If politicians locked down too late, or for too long, you are apportioning blame without any knowledge of the expert briefings, are you not?
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Surely it's as simple as creating an unencrypted backup and handing over the resulting file?
Whatsapp dont have the encryption keys hence the name end to end encryption. They cannot decrypt the messages
If only In-Q-Tel had had more foresight. I told the CIA to be careful. Seriously, you must be living in cloud cuckoo land.
You do realise that knowledgeble people have been over the code from places like signal etc specifically looking for backdoors. Would the NSA love them sure....doesnt mean they are there however. Why do you think many governements are trying to make end to end encryption illegal?
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
I don't know, that would have been up to the investigating detectives. If you don't believe the investigation was rigerous enough you need to address your complaint to Durham Constabulary not me.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I haven't made your point for you.
I am quite comfortable with the Beergate investigation. You are not. You must demand the case is reopened and this time Starmer's guilt is tested in court.
Perhaps for balance the Met should investigate the 5 parties Johnson attended where minions were prosecuted but they didn't pursue Johnson at all.
You do realise that you make this sound like a political witch-hunt, rather than an unbiased attempt to get at the truth?
But you want to suppress the truth in case your boys are implicated in something unseemly. This doesn't look like a point of principle it looks like the Cabinet Office are hiding something they don't want the inquiry to see. Now that may be as far from the truth as one could get, but Case and Sunak are looking shifty, like they are withholding the truth. Why would they choose to do that?
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
I think they’re more likely to spectacularly fuck up if they’re terrified to communicate.
You end up with Theresa May-type characters proliferating.
On the contrary, I think 'act like this is going to be read by the public' is a good way to run Government. We need high standards in public life.
It's a good baseline to work from. Of course we know politicians and governments seek ways around disclosing things, but that doesn't undermine the principal.
Besides, it's not generally suggested any private communications should be immediately and always accessible as a matter of course. Even public communications might be accessible but that doesn't mean automatic immediate release.
But if you are undertaking inquiries the inquiry has to see what went on and what was said, and if you have intermingled communications it is absurd to suggest the inquiry must simply accept a ruling that X is relevant and Y is not. The inquiry at least has to make that call, otherwise they are not inquiring, they are just looking at pre-approved information which may well direct them to a certain direction, intentionally or otherwise.
Actually many governments are arguing that private conversations should be available
It is a chilling how few politicians either (a) understand encryption, or (b) care about the civil liberties implications.
I remember when when wearing a T-Shirt with the RSA algorithm could get you arrested at a US airport.
Seems many on here also don't understand the concept with crys of just ask whatsapp for the unecrypted messages
They're not asking WhatsApp for the messages; they're asking Boris for the messages.
I was referring to people saying they can just demand the messages from whatsapp
But nobody here was saying that. You made the claim that it wasn't possible for WhatsApp messages to be handled over, and I pointed out that this was clearly incorrect. Yes, they can be handled over by the recipient, but (as you correctly state) they can't be intercepted or demanded from WhatsApp.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
I dont have any problem with them being able to do that with relative confidence. But if you are undertaking a public inquiry things that normally wouldn't be accessible (at least not so soon) will become so, that's inevitable.
The issue is the balancing of what the inquiry needs to know in order to meaningfully do the job it was set up for. If that job is pretty broad, you simply cannot have people with a very strong vested interest deciding what it should get to see about those communications without undermining its purpose.
The US Air Force tested an AI enabled drone that was tasked to destroy specific targets. A human operator had the power to override the drone—and so the drone decided that the human operator was an obstacle to its mission—and attacked him. https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1664331870564147200
Yeah - but if gave me a fairly decent recipe for stuffed peppers earlier today. Swings and roundabouts...
So long as you get to taste it before being taken out.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Replied to wrong message
You need to be careful about falls. I had one about a year ago and I’ve hardly walked properly or unaided since.
Yes I know you have and so sorry it had the outcome you have experienced
And yes, you are correct and I am very careful
Indeed a few years ago I had a very sore knee and the physio who resolved it for me did caution me to be careful as my balance was not as good as hoped
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
I think they’re more likely to spectacularly fuck up if they’re terrified to communicate.
You end up with Theresa May-type characters proliferating.
On the contrary, I think 'act like this is going to be read by the public' is a good way to run Government. We need high standards in public life.
It's a good baseline to work from. Of course we know politicians and governments seek ways around disclosing things, but that doesn't undermine the principal.
Besides, it's not generally suggested any private communications should be immediately and always accessible as a matter of course. Even public communications might be accessible but that doesn't mean automatic immediate release.
But if you are undertaking inquiries the inquiry has to see what went on and what was said, and if you have intermingled communications it is absurd to suggest the inquiry must simply accept a ruling that X is relevant and Y is not. The inquiry at least has to make that call, otherwise they are not inquiring, they are just looking at pre-approved information which may well direct them to a certain direction, intentionally or otherwise.
Actually many governments are arguing that private conversations should be available
It is a chilling how few politicians either (a) understand encryption, or (b) care about the civil liberties implications.
I remember when when wearing a T-Shirt with the RSA algorithm could get you arrested at a US airport.
Seems many on here also don't understand the concept with crys of just ask whatsapp for the unecrypted messages
They're not asking WhatsApp for the messages; they're asking Boris for the messages.
I was referring to people saying they can just demand the messages from whatsapp
But nobody here was saying that. You made the claim that it wasn't possible for WhatsApp messages to be handled over, and I pointed out that this was clearly incorrect. Yes, they can be handled over by the recipient, but (as you correctly state) they can't be intercepted or demanded from WhatsApp.
Mexican pete said "otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly."
I replied whatsapp couldnt reply
you then said they could just supply an ecrypted back up....will come back and edit with the post time
7.45 was the post time. The post I replied to and which you responded about them just making an unecrypted backup
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Replied to wrong message
You need to be careful about falls. I had one about a year ago and I’ve hardly walked properly or unaided since.
Yes I know you have and so sorry it had the outcome you have experienced
And yes, you are correct and I am very careful
Indeed a few years ago I had a very sore knee and the physio who resolved it for me did caution me to be careful as my balance was not as good as hoped
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Surely it's as simple as creating an unencrypted backup and handing over the resulting file?
Whatsapp dont have the encryption keys hence the name end to end encryption. They cannot decrypt the messages
If only In-Q-Tel had had more foresight. I told the CIA to be careful. Seriously, you must be living in cloud cuckoo land.
You do realise that knowledgeble people have been over the code from places like signal etc specifically looking for backdoors. Would the NSA love them sure....doesnt mean they are there however. Why do you think many governements are trying to make end to end encryption illegal?
That's true. But Spectre and the like shows that there can be *very* innovative and interesting backdoors into systems - and not all are software.
I'm not saying that's happening - but wanting to ban encryption is both a good back-up, and also a good smokescreen. It is also utterly impossible.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
I dont have any problem with them being able to do that with relative confidence. But if you are undertaking a public inquiry things that normally wouldn't be accessible (at least not so soon) will become so, that's inevitable.
The issue is the balancing of what the inquiry needs to know in order to meaningfully do the job it was set up for. If that job is pretty broad, you simply cannot have people with a very strong vested interest deciding what it should get to see about those communications without undermining its purpose.
Share it on an in camera basis
These things should be on an in CAMRA basis. Handled over a pint.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
Reports say Boris did say that at one point.
Is that a failing of Boris, or the government scientists rubbish for not making the seriousness clear enough to him nearly quickly enough.
He was wandering around hospitals shaking hands with people remember.
Again I say, is that Boris fault? You have to blame the scientists for being too slow to influence.
Like saying "Don't stick your hand in the furnace - it's dangerous.".
"I've stuck my hand in the furnace - now it's all burned. This is your fault."?
Just like that - but being told don’t put your hand in furnace before you do is the important bit when it goes to court or the enquiry. I’m accusing you of making assumptions how Boris was quickly briefed by the scientists. They are the subject matter experts. If politicians locked down too late, or for too long, you are apportioning blame without any knowledge of the expert briefings, are you not?
I was just making a light-hearted joke while I passed by to do the dinner dishes. Sorry for upsetting you.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
Potentially more than that. And they all need not just to be read, but also considered for relevance., and cross-referenced with other information to look for inconsistencies.
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
I think the IT is against you on this one as well.
Start with emails. Not every email will be saved, when you just save the last one, the thread as the record.
Things that are paper are quickly digitised and searched through with OCR.
It won’t take that long for an enquiry to go through the whats apps, nor all the digital records. They will have search tools available for every record they receive.
Seems more an argument that all governement business be over government networks where all communication can be stored and retrieved. No this does not mean building a new system. Plenty of systems already available they could use for email and whats app alike stuff which would allow message archiving.
Anyone using channels of electronic communication for government business outside that make it mandatory 20 years in prison
That would prevent reappointing Leaky Sue to Home Secretary just a week later?
Anyway, you can copy and paste. I’ll give you this one, and you can just copy and paste it whenever you need it ‘
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
I dont have any problem with them being able to do that with relative confidence. But if you are undertaking a public inquiry things that normally wouldn't be accessible (at least not so soon) will become so, that's inevitable.
The issue is the balancing of what the inquiry needs to know in order to meaningfully do the job it was set up for. If that job is pretty broad, you simply cannot have people with a very strong vested interest deciding what it should get to see about those communications without undermining its purpose.
Share it on an in camera basis
These things should be on an in CAMRA basis. Handled over a pint.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
Stupid ideas? This is a pandemic which is set to massacre people in their millions. Is already doing heinous things in Italy. And Bonzo wanted to be injected with it live on telly to show everyone it wasn't that big a deal?
Lets keep going with the scenario. "Erm look I've just been given Covid. Crumbs! But that means you don't need to worry, so ignore all these foreign johnnies locking down and keep going to work and visiting Peppa Pig World"
The US Air Force tested an AI enabled drone that was tasked to destroy specific targets. A human operator had the power to override the drone—and so the drone decided that the human operator was an obstacle to its mission—and attacked him. https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1664331870564147200
Smells a bit apocryphal and as the tweet indicates the anecdote refers to a simulation. However, not actually surprising: naval fleet simulations in the 80's had ships killing their own damaged ships to speed up movements.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
Reports say Boris did say that at one point.
Is that a failing of Boris, or the government scientists rubbish for not making the seriousness clear enough to him nearly quickly enough.
He was wandering around hospitals shaking hands with people remember.
Again I say, is that Boris fault? You have to blame the scientists for being too slow to influence.
Like saying "Don't stick your hand in the furnace - it's dangerous.".
"I've stuck my hand in the furnace - now it's all burned. This is your fault."?
Just like that - but being told don’t put your hand in furnace before you do is the important bit when it goes to court or the enquiry. I’m accusing you of making assumptions how Boris was quickly briefed by the scientists. They are the subject matter experts. If politicians locked down too late, or for too long, you are apportioning blame without any knowledge of the expert briefings, are you not?
I was just making a light-hearted joke while I passed by to do the dinner dishes. Sorry for upsetting you.
If only In-Q-Tel had had more foresight. I told the CIA to be careful. Seriously, you must be living in cloud cuckoo land.
If you think the Signal protocol is broken you could very easily get an award from a top security, cryptography, or computer science conference, and any reputable journal will publish your paper with delight.
But put kudos aside, you could get very rich from such knowledge! That knowledge would easily sell for tens of millions of dollars or higher. People get millions for far less widely applicable vulnerabilities. A break of Signal would be worth a fortune, the NSA has sunk literally billions into huge cryptographic attacks, they'd cut a mighty big check for whacking WhatsApp. Careful if you try to sell it to the Russians or Chinese, they'll probably just disappear you.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
I don't know, that would have been up to the investigating detectives. If you don't believe the investigation was rigerous enough you need to address your complaint to Durham Constabulary not me.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I haven't made your point for you.
I am quite comfortable with the Beergate investigation. You are not. You must demand the case is reopened and this time Starmer's guilt is tested in court.
Perhaps for balance the Met should investigate the 5 parties Johnson attended where minions were prosecuted but they didn't pursue Johnson at all.
You do realise that you make this sound like a political witch-hunt, rather than an unbiased attempt to get at the truth?
But you want to suppress the truth in case your boys are implicated in something unseemly. This doesn't look like a point of principle it looks like the Cabinet Office are hiding something they don't want the inquiry to see. Now that may be as far from the truth as one could get, but Case and Sunak are looking shifty, like they are withholding the truth. Why would they choose to do that?
If there is nothing to see, great.
Fundamentally that is the problem here - they may be totally on the up and up and the inquiry as a whole should not see it. But they, the holders of the information, cannot be the ones to impartially judge if that is so, however much integrity they may have.
It is a variant of the old 'justice must be done and seen to be done' line - they have to provide all relevant material, and be seen to provide it. Not just say 'That's all of it, guv, we swear'.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
Surely it's as simple as creating an unencrypted backup and handing over the resulting file?
Whatsapp dont have the encryption keys hence the name end to end encryption. They cannot decrypt the messages
If only In-Q-Tel had had more foresight. I told the CIA to be careful. Seriously, you must be living in cloud cuckoo land.
You do realise that knowledgeble people have been over the code from places like signal etc specifically looking for backdoors. Would the NSA love them sure....doesnt mean they are there however. Why do you think many governements are trying to make end to end encryption illegal?
That's true. But Spectre and the like shows that there can be *very* innovative and interesting backdoors into systems - and not all are software.
I'm not saying that's happening - but wanting to ban encryption is both a good back-up, and also a good smokescreen. It is also utterly impossible.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
Stupid ideas? This is a pandemic which is set to massacre people in their millions. Is already doing heinous things in Italy. And Bonzo wanted to be injected with it live on telly to show everyone it wasn't that big a deal?
Lets keep going with the scenario. "Erm look I've just been given Covid. Crumbs! But that means you don't need to worry, so ignore all these foreign johnnies locking down and keep going to work and visiting Peppa Pig World"
That isn't stupid. Its psychotic.
Sure. But you don’t want people holding back because they are worried about what a future inquiry will say
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
Stupid ideas? This is a pandemic which is set to massacre people in their millions. Is already doing heinous things in Italy. And Bonzo wanted to be injected with it live on telly to show everyone it wasn't that big a deal?
Lets keep going with the scenario. "Erm look I've just been given Covid. Crumbs! But that means you don't need to worry, so ignore all these foreign johnnies locking down and keep going to work and visiting Peppa Pig World"
That isn't stupid. Its psychotic.
Do you never hear any piece of information without it triggering a hysterical narrative about how everyone involved is an idiot?
Initially the WHO were playing it down and arguing against imposing restrictions. In that context it's easy to see how the suggestion might come about as a way to reassure people, à la John Gummer.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
But that specific claim is already out there, thanks to everyone's favourite career sociopath. Nothing to do with the enquiry. The horse has already bolted and found a distant field full of juicy grass to eat.
Given that the claim is already public, and has been for about two years, how can the enquiry not investigate it? If we don't trust judicial enquiries to handle information with the appropriate care, we have an even bigger problem to solve. (Note that there are other ways the BoJo questions could have got into the public domain which are way more likely than Baroness Hallett dropping them off in the vicinity of a Times hack.)
Well, I confess I had a near-perfect day, after moaning about the weather earlier
I spent the morning (under the cloud) doing some agreeable work, well paid and satisfying. Then the clouds cleared and I went to see my older daughter (now 17!) in Kenwood and Hampstead. We just faffed about in the gorgeous sun, and realised we had a shared passion for Succession. We discussed the likely future lives of Roman, Shiv, Greg and then discussed deeper things like gender, and season 4 of Parks and Rec
Then we repaired to the ancient garden of the Spaniard's Inn, possibly the nicest pub in the world, where I drank fine Sancerre and she had a generation-befitting lemonade, then we did it again, and she told me she wants to study Geography at either Falmouth or UCL (as befits her amazing mock A Level results) - which pleasethed me mightily - then I came home and now I am cooking a laksa, and drinking Tesco Finest chat du pape, and all is well with the world, and the future seems quite promising, and more fine weather beckons
In late middle age, that is probably about as good as it gets?
Dear Lord, I expect no more. My children are healthy and intelligent, I deeply enjoy my end-stage career, life is quite bonny. Thanks, gov
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
I don't know, that would have been up to the investigating detectives. If you don't believe the investigation was rigerous enough you need to address your complaint to Durham Constabulary not me.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I haven't made your point for you.
I am quite comfortable with the Beergate investigation. You are not. You must demand the case is reopened and this time Starmer's guilt is tested in court.
Perhaps for balance the Met should investigate the 5 parties Johnson attended where minions were prosecuted but they didn't pursue Johnson at all.
You do realise that you make this sound like a political witch-hunt, rather than an unbiased attempt to get at the truth?
But you want to suppress the truth in case your boys are implicated in something unseemly. This doesn't look like a point of principle it looks like the Cabinet Office are hiding something they don't want the inquiry to see. Now that may be as far from the truth as one could get, but Case and Sunak are looking shifty, like they are withholding the truth. Why would they choose to do that?
If there is nothing to see, great.
"your boys" ?
It's a shame I have to repeat this - I am not a Tory. I am likely to vote Labour at the next election (or Lib Dem). Not Tory. For the reasons I've given in the past.
Aside from that, well done.
Perhaps, just perhaps, I have views that differ from yours for good reasons that are not party-political? By all means disagree with them, but don't use such pathetically shallow thinking.
Here's a question for a starter: in a hypothetical situation, are there cases where a government should be able to keep information not related to Covid away from the inquiry?
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
Stupid ideas? This is a pandemic which is set to massacre people in their millions. Is already doing heinous things in Italy. And Bonzo wanted to be injected with it live on telly to show everyone it wasn't that big a deal?
Lets keep going with the scenario. "Erm look I've just been given Covid. Crumbs! But that means you don't need to worry, so ignore all these foreign johnnies locking down and keep going to work and visiting Peppa Pig World"
That isn't stupid. Its psychotic.
Sure. But you don’t want people holding back because they are worried about what a future inquiry will say
That cannot be avoided. You never know what might be the subject of a future inquiry and what might be relevant to that inquiry. If people hold back on that basis then its once again an argument against any inquiries at all.
Newsrooms all around Fleet Street have been abuzz with a story this week about an amusing last minute deadline panic at the Daily Mail.
Late last week, Mail editor Ted Verity came into possession of a bombshell photo showing Boris Johnson, his mother, his sister and little baby Wilf out in the open air at No.10. The Mail wrote up a big front page story about how the photo was PROOF that Boris had done no wrong and that the police are conducting a baseless witch hunt against him.
It was all laid out, ready to go to press, when one of the hacks looking over it piped up to ask if the four of them shouldn't have been much further apart – given that social distancing rules were in place at the time. Sure enough, the picture they were about to splash across their front page not only proved that Boris Johnson broke the rules he put in place, but that he still doesn't understand them now.
Because the super secret source of the photo, who thought its publication would fully exonerate Boris, was... Boris.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
I dont have any problem with them being able to do that with relative confidence. But if you are undertaking a public inquiry things that normally wouldn't be accessible (at least not so soon) will become so, that's inevitable.
The issue is the balancing of what the inquiry needs to know in order to meaningfully do the job it was set up for. If that job is pretty broad, you simply cannot have people with a very strong vested interest deciding what it should get to see about those communications without undermining its purpose.
Share it on an in camera basis
These things should be on an in CAMRA basis. Handled over a pint.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
I dont have any problem with them being able to do that with relative confidence. But if you are undertaking a public inquiry things that normally wouldn't be accessible (at least not so soon) will become so, that's inevitable.
The issue is the balancing of what the inquiry needs to know in order to meaningfully do the job it was set up for. If that job is pretty broad, you simply cannot have people with a very strong vested interest deciding what it should get to see about those communications without undermining its purpose.
Share it on an in camera basis
These things should be on an in CAMRA basis. Handled over a pint.
It is genuinely impressive the extent to which this government has forgotten to do politics. These messages must be spectacularly bad to make this a price worth paying.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
The inquiry isn’t going to release material to the public if it’s not relevant . Why on earth would anyone believe anything that comes out of no 10 given recent history . The judge should be allowed to decide what is or is not relevant .
The 'inquiry' may not. But can you guarantee there will not be leaks, given the vast scope of the data and the *very* political nature?
So there mere possibility of leaks means sensitive information cannot be provided in confidence to the Chairman and key officials?
That does not seem a proportionate response - it again begs the question that if that is the only way to protect that information, then there really is no point to such inquiries where overlapping information is nigh on inevitable.
There already appears to have been at least one leak, from somewhere; a leak that embarrasses one of the witnesses. Which highlights exactly the thing I'm talking about.
And the 'proportionate response' surely depends on the data that is wanted to be withheld?
We're talking edge cases here, mixed with security and privacy issues.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
I dont have any problem with them being able to do that with relative confidence. But if you are undertaking a public inquiry things that normally wouldn't be accessible (at least not so soon) will become so, that's inevitable.
The issue is the balancing of what the inquiry needs to know in order to meaningfully do the job it was set up for. If that job is pretty broad, you simply cannot have people with a very strong vested interest deciding what it should get to see about those communications without undermining its purpose.
Share it on an in camera basis
These things should be on an in CAMRA basis. Handled over a pint.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
I dont have any problem with them being able to do that with relative confidence. But if you are undertaking a public inquiry things that normally wouldn't be accessible (at least not so soon) will become so, that's inevitable.
The issue is the balancing of what the inquiry needs to know in order to meaningfully do the job it was set up for. If that job is pretty broad, you simply cannot have people with a very strong vested interest deciding what it should get to see about those communications without undermining its purpose.
Share it on an in camera basis
These things should be on an in CAMRA basis. Handled over a pint.
Newsrooms all around Fleet Street have been abuzz with a story this week about an amusing last minute deadline panic at the Daily Mail.
Late last week, Mail editor Ted Verity came into possession of a bombshell photo showing Boris Johnson, his mother, his sister and little baby Wilf out in the open air at No.10. The Mail wrote up a big front page story about how the photo was PROOF that Boris had done no wrong and that the police are conducting a baseless witch hunt against him.
It was all laid out, ready to go to press, when one of the hacks looking over it piped up to ask if the four of them shouldn't have been much further apart – given that social distancing rules were in place at the time. Sure enough, the picture they were about to splash across their front page not only proved that Boris Johnson broke the rules he put in place, but that he still doesn't understand them now.
Because the super secret source of the photo, who thought its publication would fully exonerate Boris, was... Boris.
Leaving aside the small detail that a photo of people doing the right thing at one moment in time doesn't prove that they did the right thing at all times...
...wouldn't it have been brilliant if said hack hadn't been in the room at that moment?
It is genuinely impressive the extent to which this government has forgotten to do politics. These messages must be spectacularly bad to make this a price worth paying.
It's actually a lesser remarked symptom of being in government too long, forgetting how to do politics.
You get angrier and lazier about dealing with opponents and media, you miss obvious traps and scandals, you miss opporunities because you're too busy navel gazing about your latest attempt to refresh things, etc.
So we have the irresistible force of "The thing about this group is that they turnout at general elections and we should expect them to do the same next time"
And the immovable object of "don't knows don't vote".
One position or the other will be able to say "I told you so" without us learning anything about what was actually going on.
Well, I confess I had a near-perfect day, after moaning about the weather earlier
I spent the morning (under the cloud) doing some agreeable work, well paid and satisfying. Then the clouds cleared and I went to see my older daughter (now 17!) in Kenwood and Hampstead. We just faffed about in the gorgeous sun, and realised we had a shared passion for Succession. We discussed the likely future lives of Roman, Shiv, Greg and then discussed deeper things like gender, and season 4 of Parks and Rec
Then we repaired to the ancient garden of the Spaniard's Inn, possibly the nicest pub in the world, where I drank fine Sancerre and she had a generation-befitting lemonade, then we did it again, and she told me she wants to study Geography at either Falmouth or UCL (as befits her amazing mock A Level results) - which pleasethed me mightily - then I came home and now I am cooking a laksa, and drinking Tesco Finest chat du pape, and all is well with the world, and the future seems quite promising, and more fine weather beckons
In late middle age, that is probably about as good as it gets?
Dear Lord, I expect no more. My children are healthy and intelligent, I deeply enjoy my end-stage career, life is quite bonny. Thanks, gov
And they enjoy the best season of Parks and Rec, so they've clearly got some judgement despite being young people.
It is genuinely impressive the extent to which this government has forgotten to do politics. These messages must be spectacularly bad to make this a price worth paying.
My suspicion is that they will turn out to be comparatively trivial and all this has been total obstinacy.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
I don't know, that would have been up to the investigating detectives. If you don't believe the investigation was rigerous enough you need to address your complaint to Durham Constabulary not me.
Thanks for making my point for me.
I haven't made your point for you.
I am quite comfortable with the Beergate investigation. You are not. You must demand the case is reopened and this time Starmer's guilt is tested in court.
Perhaps for balance the Met should investigate the 5 parties Johnson attended where minions were prosecuted but they didn't pursue Johnson at all.
You do realise that you make this sound like a political witch-hunt, rather than an unbiased attempt to get at the truth?
But you want to suppress the truth in case your boys are implicated in something unseemly. This doesn't look like a point of principle it looks like the Cabinet Office are hiding something they don't want the inquiry to see. Now that may be as far from the truth as one could get, but Case and Sunak are looking shifty, like they are withholding the truth. Why would they choose to do that?
If there is nothing to see, great.
"your boys" ?
It's a shame I have to repeat this - I am not a Tory. I am likely to vote Labour at the next election (or Lib Dem). Not Tory. For the reasons I've given in the past.
Aside from that, well done.
Perhaps, just perhaps, I have views that differ from yours for good reasons that are not party-political? By all means disagree with them, but don't use such pathetically shallow thinking.
Here's a question for a starter: in a hypothetical situation, are there cases where a government should be able to keep information not related to Covid away from the inquiry?
Of course there are. Sensitive defence information for example. I suspect Hallet would accept such justification, but if these memos are being sent via WhatsApp rather than secure governmental channels I would be surprised.
I am not being remotely partisan. I would expect no less rigour demanded of any other stripe of government. It is true I trust Johnson about as far as I could throw the building I am currently sitting inside, I would demand at least as much rigour when Johnson is involved as anyone else.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
The inquiry isn’t going to release material to the public if it’s not relevant . Why on earth would anyone believe anything that comes out of no 10 given recent history . The judge should be allowed to decide what is or is not relevant .
The 'inquiry' may not. But can you guarantee there will not be leaks, given the vast scope of the data and the *very* political nature?
So there mere possibility of leaks means sensitive information cannot be provided in confidence to the Chairman and key officials?
That does not seem a proportionate response - it again begs the question that if that is the only way to protect that information, then there really is no point to such inquiries where overlapping information is nigh on inevitable.
There already appears to have been at least one leak, from somewhere; a leak that embarrasses one of the witnesses. Which highlights exactly the thing I'm talking about.
And the 'proportionate response' surely depends on the data that is wanted to be withheld?
We're talking edge cases here, mixed with security and privacy issues.
Edge cases is the point - your position,intentionally or not, is ultimately is that the government gets to unilaterally withhold anything it likes and people have to accept it is not relevant material, on the mere possibility of a leak of that information from those edge cases. They don't think anyone else can assess whether withholding is a proportionate response, which means they have unfettered discretion.
And unfettered discretion is always abused or misused.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It's more than a soundbite. It's the reality of how good investigations work and have to work.
Judges are well used to dealing with issues of national security in court hearings. If information is truly irrelevant then it will not need to be referred to or released.
It is genuinely impressive the extent to which this government has forgotten to do politics. These messages must be spectacularly bad to make this a price worth paying.
My suspicion is that they will turn out to be comparatively trivial and all this has been total obstinacy.
I think that most likely. It is a spectacular own goal by Sunak.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
That’s actually a really good example of why government communications should be privileged.
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
Stupid ideas? This is a pandemic which is set to massacre people in their millions. Is already doing heinous things in Italy. And Bonzo wanted to be injected with it live on telly to show everyone it wasn't that big a deal?
Lets keep going with the scenario. "Erm look I've just been given Covid. Crumbs! But that means you don't need to worry, so ignore all these foreign johnnies locking down and keep going to work and visiting Peppa Pig World"
That isn't stupid. Its psychotic.
Do you never hear any piece of information without it triggering a hysterical narrative about how everyone involved is an idiot?
Initially the WHO were playing it down and arguing against imposing restrictions. In that context it's easy to see how the suggestion might come about as a way to reassure people, à la John Gummer.
Didn't Elvis publicly take the polio vaccine on TV so as to reassure da youf of those days?
On a sunny day, the Spaniard's Inn is literally - I submit - the greatest pub in the world. It has the history, the location, the garden (and also excellent gastropub food)
After today's trip up, the US Democrats can't nominate Joe Biden and expect to hold the presidency. I've bought Kamala Harris to win USPE2024 at 48.
It isn't a good look, but let's remember Trump required Theresa May to hold his hand whilst climbing a shallow stairs.
It's probably nothing, he is not in bad physical shape for 80, but let't not kid ourselves plenty are worried about his state, especially since at that age people can devolve quickly, so it plays so much worse than if DeSantis slipped and fell on his arse. Every little stumble will be portrayed as a sign of the end.
If Trump is permitted to run I'm far from confident he doesn't win.
Comments
I'm not saying that information should not be released; just that it's potentially reasonable for some information not to be. And there lies the devil.
We've already seen a potential leak, and are seeing piss-taking over things like post-it notes.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-announces-covid-19-inquiry-chair
you actually trust Sunak and Cabinet Office with confidentiality more than you do Hallet? That’s your position here is it?
I am quite comfortable with the Beergate investigation. You are not. You must demand the case is reopened and this time Starmer's guilt is tested in court.
Perhaps for balance the Met should investigate the 5 parties Johnson attended where minions were prosecuted but they didn't pursue Johnson at all.
It doesn't take too much brain power to figure out that comparing missile, warhead, and yield numbers is misleading. The US has a bigger punch that it appears, Russia the reverse.
40 - we do thar a day within the family !!!!
Mind you that is from May 21 not the ones before apparently lost in space !!!!
I remember when when wearing a T-Shirt with the RSA algorithm could get you arrested at a US airport.
Start with emails. Not every email will be saved, when you just save the last one, the thread as the record.
Things that are paper are quickly digitised and searched through with OCR.
It won’t take that long for an enquiry to go through the whats apps, nor all the digital records. They will have search tools available for every record they receive.
The US Air Force tested an AI enabled drone that was tasked to destroy specific targets. A human operator had the power to override the drone—and so the drone decided that the human operator was an obstacle to its mission—and attacked him.
https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1664331870564147200
That's the sort of madness we're looking at.
I use post-it notes all the time; and from many tech places I;ve been into, so do many other people. Very useful for writing short aide-memoires.
"I''m bored, it's funny and – and I hate you. There you are, the holy trinity of why."
They need to be able to suggest the really stupid ideas and to debate and analyse all options without it being leaked that the “government considered doing X”
Anyone using channels of electronic communication for government business outside that make it mandatory 20 years in prison
That does not seem a proportionate response - it again begs the question that if that is the only way to protect that information, then there really is no point to such inquiries where overlapping information is nigh on inevitable.
"I've stuck my hand in the furnace - now it's all burned. This is your fault."?
To be fair I have recently fitted staircase handrails for both of us and when you know you are susceptible to a fall, you do take more care
On what grounds expecting the upturn in new year, not much before or much later?
The issue is the balancing of what the inquiry needs to know in order to meaningfully do the job it was set up for. If that job is pretty broad, you simply cannot have people with a very strong vested interest deciding what it should get to see about those communications without undermining its purpose.
If there is nothing to see, great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election
And yes, you are correct and I am very careful
Indeed a few years ago I had a very sore knee and the physio who resolved it for me did caution me to be careful as my balance was not as good as hoped
I replied whatsapp couldnt reply
you then said they could just supply an ecrypted back up....will come back and edit with the post time
7.45 was the post time. The post I replied to and which you responded about them just making an unecrypted backup
I'm not saying that's happening - but wanting to ban encryption is both a good back-up, and also a good smokescreen. It is also utterly impossible.
Anyway, you can copy and paste. I’ll give you this one, and you can just copy and paste it whenever you need it ‘
Lets keep going with the scenario. "Erm look I've just been given Covid. Crumbs! But that means you don't need to worry, so ignore all these foreign johnnies locking down and keep going to work and visiting Peppa Pig World"
That isn't stupid. Its psychotic.
Plus, y'know, the whole Skynet thing
But put kudos aside, you could get very rich from such knowledge! That knowledge would easily sell for tens of millions of dollars or higher. People get millions for far less widely applicable vulnerabilities. A break of Signal would be worth a fortune, the NSA has sunk literally billions into huge cryptographic attacks, they'd cut a mighty big check for whacking WhatsApp. Careful if you try to sell it to the Russians or Chinese, they'll probably just disappear you.
It is a variant of the old 'justice must be done and seen to be done' line - they have to provide all relevant material, and be seen to provide it. Not just say 'That's all of it, guv, we swear'.
Initially the WHO were playing it down and arguing against imposing restrictions. In that context it's easy to see how the suggestion might come about as a way to reassure people, à la John Gummer.
Given that the claim is already public, and has been for about two years, how can the enquiry not investigate it? If we don't trust judicial enquiries to handle information with the appropriate care, we have an even bigger problem to solve. (Note that there are other ways the BoJo questions could have got into the public domain which are way more likely than Baroness Hallett dropping them off in the vicinity of a Times hack.)
I spent the morning (under the cloud) doing some agreeable work, well paid and satisfying. Then the clouds cleared and I went to see my older daughter (now 17!) in Kenwood and Hampstead. We just faffed about in the gorgeous sun, and realised we had a shared passion for Succession. We discussed the likely future lives of Roman, Shiv, Greg and then discussed deeper things like gender, and season 4 of Parks and Rec
Then we repaired to the ancient garden of the Spaniard's Inn, possibly the nicest pub in the world, where I drank fine Sancerre and she had a generation-befitting lemonade, then we did it again, and she told me she wants to study Geography at either Falmouth or UCL (as befits her amazing mock A Level results) - which pleasethed me mightily - then I came home and now I am cooking a laksa, and drinking Tesco Finest chat du pape, and all is well with the world, and the future seems quite promising, and more fine weather beckons
In late middle age, that is probably about as good as it gets?
Dear Lord, I expect no more. My children are healthy and intelligent, I deeply enjoy my end-stage career, life is quite bonny. Thanks, gov
It's a shame I have to repeat this - I am not a Tory. I am likely to vote Labour at the next election (or Lib Dem). Not Tory. For the reasons I've given in the past.
Aside from that, well done.
Perhaps, just perhaps, I have views that differ from yours for good reasons that are not party-political? By all means disagree with them, but don't use such pathetically shallow thinking.
Here's a question for a starter: in a hypothetical situation, are there cases where a government should be able to keep information not related to Covid away from the inquiry?
Newsrooms all around Fleet Street have been abuzz with a story this week about an amusing last minute deadline panic at the Daily Mail.
Late last week, Mail editor Ted Verity came into possession of a bombshell photo showing Boris Johnson, his mother, his sister and little baby Wilf out in the open air at No.10. The Mail wrote up a big front page story about how the photo was PROOF that Boris had done no wrong and that the police are conducting a baseless witch hunt against him.
It was all laid out, ready to go to press, when one of the hacks looking over it piped up to ask if the four of them shouldn't have been much further apart – given that social distancing rules were in place at the time. Sure enough, the picture they were about to splash across their front page not only proved that Boris Johnson broke the rules he put in place, but that he still doesn't understand them now.
Because the super secret source of the photo, who thought its publication would fully exonerate Boris, was... Boris.
And the 'proportionate response' surely depends on the data that is wanted to be withheld?
We're talking edge cases here, mixed with security and privacy issues.
A Canadian socialite who killed a police chief in Belize with his own gun has reportedly been spared prison time.
Jasmine Hartin, 34, was handed a £30,000 fine and 300 hours of community service, according to local reports.
She pleaded guilty in April to the manslaughter of Henry Jemmott on 28 May 2021. He died from a single gunshot wound to the head.
Hartin is the former partner of Andrew Ashcroft, the son of a prominent UK businessman Lord Michael Ashcroft.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65770626
...wouldn't it have been brilliant if said hack hadn't been in the room at that moment?
You get angrier and lazier about dealing with opponents and media, you miss obvious traps and scandals, you miss opporunities because you're too busy navel gazing about your latest attempt to refresh things, etc.
And the immovable object of "don't knows don't vote".
One position or the other will be able to say "I told you so" without us learning anything about what was actually going on.
I've bought Kamala Harris to win USPE2024 at 48.
I am not being remotely partisan. I would expect no less rigour demanded of any other stripe of government. It is true I trust Johnson about as far as I could throw the building I am currently sitting inside, I would demand at least as much rigour when Johnson is involved as anyone else.
And unfettered discretion is always abused or misused.
Judges are well used to dealing with issues of national security in court hearings. If information is truly irrelevant then it will not need to be referred to or released.
I CHALLENGE PB TO COME UP WITH OTHER CONTENDERS
Write emails like they're being read out in court.
If Trump is permitted to run I'm far from confident he doesn't win.