Government/Cabinet Office vs COVID Inquiry

[Gweeds]

Looks like this will be an interesting one to watch. 4pm deadline today (has now been extended to 4pm Thursday) for the Government to hand over WhatsApp messages and unredacted diaries to the Hallett Inquiry into COVID.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may...

I would link to the Telegraph but it's weirdly quiet on this one, last article was 24th May - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?q=hallett&...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-w...

Daily Mail is also weirdly quiet on COVID all of a sudden.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-politics-live...

[JagLover]

Based on Hancock's Whats App messages the government will be very reluctant to hand these over.

[bitchstewie]

Apologies if this is a daft question but why/how do the Cabinet Office get to choose what gets redacted from what is basically evidence?

[Gecko1978]

bhstewie said:

Apologies if this is a daft question but why/how do the Cabinet Office get to choose what gets redacted from what is basically evidence?

I suspect they want it redacted because informal off the cuff language has been used. Have you ever called a colleague a know head etc ever said a collegue was lazy or doing a bad job. We all have an it is not intended to be public.

I bet the current PM slagged off Boris I bet Boris slagged off rishi and Liz. I bet Rishi spoke to liz and slagged off matt etc. It was an emotional time. I also bet some of the advice was bs but better than panic doing nothing

[Gweeds]

Gecko1978 said:

It was an emotional time

It sure was. For all of us.

[tangerine_sedge]

Gweeds said:

Looks like this will be an interesting one to watch. 4pm deadline today (has now been extended to 4pm Thursday) for the Government to hand over WhatsApp messages and unredacted diaries to the Hallett Inquiry into COVID.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may...

I would link to the Telegraph but it's weirdly quiet on this one, last article was 24th May - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?q=hallett&...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-w...

Daily Mail is also weirdly quiet on COVID all of a sudden.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-politics-live...

What seems to be getting ignored, is that ministers were doing government business on frikkin Whatsapp. I assume they thought that this back-channel would allow them to dodge scrutiny surrounding their decisions.

[pghstochaj]

Gecko1978 said:

bhstewie said:

Apologies if this is a daft question but why/how do the Cabinet Office get to choose what gets redacted from what is basically evidence?

I suspect they want it redacted because informal off the cuff language has been used. Have you ever called a colleague a know head etc ever said a collegue was lazy or doing a bad job. We all have an it is not intended to be public.

I bet the current PM slagged off Boris I bet Boris slagged off rishi and Liz. I bet Rishi spoke to liz and slagged off matt etc. It was an emotional time. I also bet some of the advice was bs but better than panic doing nothing

I am sure they want to control the evidence, but that's not how it works. That is why people in any role which can involve litigation are advised on what to write down and how to do write it down. I haven't personally been in a court case but several colleagues have and it is extraordinary how stupid people are when writing internal emails etc.

Companies/individuals do not get to pick and chose which information is provided.

[768]

bhstewie said:

Apologies if this is a daft question but why/how do the Cabinet Office get to choose what gets redacted from what is basically evidence?

They're suggesting, probably not incorrectly for much of it, that it's not evidence. Whether they get to do that or not is for the lawyers, it certainly doesn't seem right that the CO could decide but bulk sharing such data doesn't seem ideal either.

I suspect casual use of Whatsapp has declined sharply amongst politicians and will just fall further if they hand it all over. Some will think that's for the best, I'm not convinced. There's a gap in the market for an application that avoids this.

[Gweeds]

We could call that application ‘email’ and have it stored on secure servers. You could even reply to multiple people using it.

[Cobracc]

Why have they extended the deadline...?!

These bds are being given another chance to wriggle off the hook...

[pork911]

https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/16634890310...

[S600BSB]

Aren't we supposed to be cracking on with the inquiry so we can learn lessons and be better prepared next time etc? Seems like we are still at the evidence gathering stage? Only in broken Britain!

[768]

Gweeds said:

We could call that application ‘email’ and have it stored on secure servers. You could even reply to multiple people using it.

That does nothing to avoid historical data being trawled in bulk. So, no.

[anonymous-user]

pghstochaj said:

I am sure they want to control the evidence, but that's not how it works. That is why people in any role which can involve litigation are advised on what to write down and how to do write it down. I haven't personally been in a court case but several colleagues have and it is extraordinary how stupid people are when writing internal emails etc.

Companies/individuals do not get to pick and chose which information is provided.

I write all my work emails, texts, and Teams messages as though they may be read out in public at any time. Always have done. If there is something 'risky' that I wish to communicate, I speak to the person face to face or via a phone call.

I too have been extremely surprised by what colleagues are happy to write in emails and other forms of electronic communication. On numerous occasions I have had to give them advice on their conduct. Not via any kind of reprimand, just advise that whatever they write could be requested or made public, and they should communicate with this in mind.

[Gweeds]

768 said:

That does nothing to avoid historical data being trawled in bulk. So, no.

That’s how it works in business. Why should law makers be any different? Strikes me that exactly that should happen.

[AW111]

Gweeds said:

768 said:

That does nothing to avoid historical data being trawled in bulk. So, no.

That’s how it works in business. Why should law makers be any different? Strikes me that exactly that should happen.

You silly man. It's a bad idea because it may embarrass 768's team, obviously.

The idea that MP's be held to the same standards as anyone else is a joke to some.

[anonymous-user]

768 said:

Gweeds said:

We could call that application ‘email’ and have it stored on secure servers. You could even reply to multiple people using it.

That does nothing to avoid historical data being trawled in bulk. So, no.

Indeed, but isn't that what we want?

We should want to stop our politicians using typed/written communication methods that they can conveniently lose, hide, delete, or deny access to.

[768]

When was the last time a public inquiry looked at the WhatsApp messages of someone in business?

[tangerine_sedge]

768 said:

When was the last time a public inquiry looked at the WhatsApp messages of someone in business?

SQUIRREL.

If this government didn't have a history of obfuscation, hiding information and downright lying, then perhaps a public enquiry wouldn't have to publicly bh-slap foresaid government.

You seem to have forgotten that the government works for us, and all of their decisions should be recorded, preserved and available for scrutiny. What is this government trying to hide?

[pghstochaj]

768 said:

When was the last time a public inquiry looked at the WhatsApp messages of someone in business?

The last time? Probably the ongoing Grenfell Tower inquiry, why?