Boris Johnson has "forgotten his old phone code" so can't supply the messages

[cakeorwine]

Boris Johnson ‘has forgotten’ passcode for phone wanted by Covid inquiry | Covid inquiry | The Guardian

It's like getting blood out of a stone.
First he was late to supply the messages.
Then he forgets his passcode.

I am sure there are ways to get in to it.

What, and MI5 aren't capable of unlocking it for him?

You and I can have a perfectly coherent conversation about lockdown or care homes or EOTHO or border restrictions without once glancing at a WhatsApp message so I don't understand why the inquiry can't.

What has this got to do with anything? So irrelevant.

They want everything for the inquiry. And Wap is a massive tool for communication at the HoP.

Why on earth wouldn't they want it?

And honestly past form points to it being handed over if there wasn't anything suspect on it.

*Once again you are concentrating on the method of communication (WA) rather than the content (policy development, updates & decision making).

This @Middlelanehogger*

Lockdown was absolutely the wrong decision. We are living with the consequences. Look at every single inflation thread on mumsnet. Printing money to make the population stay at home without working for a year drove that heavily

Very few were on furlough for a year plus LD was used across Europe, even the USA as was QA, yet its the UK that has super high inflation, so nothing to do with UK policy and Brexit? always someone else's fault.

Once again you are concentrating on the method of communication (WA) rather than the content (policy development, updates & decision making)

Doesn't matter what the comms method is, its the content, this may enable the inquiry to find out the thinking of the Govt at the time.
Which is why the courts and the inquiry want this information.

It really shouldn't be terribly difficult to understand... unless you wish to protect Bojo from scrutiny?

And after all those IT lessons with Arcuri

Conflating three issues

1. method of communication (WhatsApp)

2. how policy decisions were made, internal discussions about them, options considered, the process by which the government decided to enact policy

3. the actual policy decisions that emerged from this process i.e. we should do lockdowns of xyz severity at abc time

---

Some people in this thread think the inquiry should be focused on 2, I think it should be focused on 3.

He is beneath contempt

It doesn't actually matter what you. I or anyone on this thread thinks about the messages.

The judge leading the enquiry has asked for them
The court has agreed.
The Government are not going to appeal

Now it seems when it comes to the handing it over, he has forgotten the code.

*Since the invention of meeting minutes people have been having quiet off-the-record conversations in the hallway before the meeting... WhatsApp is just that in digital form.

If you think this isn't the case I assume you're not a senior decision-maker.*

It's hard not read the above line as super pompous. You don't have to be "senior decision maker" 😂to know that Wap is a massive communication platform.

You can't just dismiss it.

If WaP had been around, Cardinal Wolsey would have been Wapping Thomas Cromwell on repeat. It's as indelible as parchment.

If people want quiet-off-the- record meetings. Have them. Verbally. Twas ever thus. And of course that was harder during Covid.

But hey,lots of opportunities at the parties.

Thank you to the person who took away another excuse re IT, though I suspect Shakespeare was spoken about more with Jennifer Arcuri.

You still dont seem to understand that all communications which relate to Government business in any form belong to the Crown. Its why Johnson has handed over his notebooks and diaries.

Ministers are provided with official secure channels to conduct business. Aside from the practical fact that not using these channels makes life far more difficult for the civil service, records are important, particularly when tax payers money is involved.
Any "senior decision maker" in Government understands this.

Therefore WA should not be used as a method to hinder scrutiny or transparency.

Focusing only on final policy will provide half the picture. What went in to making the policy is equally important and will guide us to developing better structures and clearer decision making processes in the future.

The Covid Inquiry is operating in accordance with legislation and aims and objectives set by the Government.

And it doesnt really matter that you dont like the Government (and associated advisers) being scrutinised.

Focusing only on final policy will provide half the picture. What went in to making the policy is equally important and will guide us to developing better structures and clearer decision making processes in the future.

Exactly structures and processes count. For good and bad.

Does anyone remember watching Yes Minister when some papers are going to be released under the 30 year rule? Sir Humphrey made a mistake when younger and his mistake was going to be revealed in the minutes and the papers.

Sir Humphrey explained why minutes must be taken:

Minister, what was all that in aid of? - I have learnt some interesting facts.

• I hope it does not happen again.

• I beg your pardon?

• You cannot speak to people in the department.

• Why not?

How can I advise you if I don't know what's said? I must know what is going on.
You cannot have private conversations! - You may be told things that are not true!

• You can put me right.

But they may be true! Not entirely false, but misleading, open to misinterpretation.

• You're trying to keep things from me.

• Absolutely not, Minister. Minutes must be taken, records must be kept.

You won't be here for ever, nor will we. In years to come If Cartwright were moved tomorrow, how could we check information?

• Cartwright won't be moved tomorrow.

Oh, really?

However, the Government "lost" the files in a flood. Or an office move. That was one of the excuses they created

How will I explain the missing documents to the Mail?

Well, this is what we normally do in circumstances like these.
"This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, "a few others which are part of still-active files, "some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967"

Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?

No, a marvellous winter. We lost no end of embarrassing files.

"records lost in the move to London, or when the War Office joined the Ministry of Defence, "and the withdrawal of papers that could give grounds for an action "for libel or breach of confidence or cause embarrassment to friendly governments.

" Well, that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? How many does it actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero?

Yes, Minister.

Love that.
Easy to forget how brilliantly written Yes Minister was.

I have always admired Sir Humphrey 😘

That post is partially right in that senior decision makers did appear to think What's App was akin to a digital version of an off the record conversation. It's just that they were wrong. Which is astonishing really, in 2020.

In order to accurately deal with point 3, points 1 and 2 also have to be examined.

Point 3 cannot just be looked at on its own.

Which is astonishing really, in 2020.

Too many "senior decision - makers." 😉

I don't age has anything to with it, many in Govt are in their 40s, hardly silver Surfers.

Plus they have some briefing in cyber security, i'm alot older than 40 and i have always know that any form of internet based comms is forever.

I suspect these people are so entitled they actually do believe they are untouchable and unaccountable, bit like the character Roper in the Night Manager.

Tongue in cheek tbh.

More like this

I suspect these people are so entitled they actually do believe they are untouchable and unaccountable,

As SO OFTEN been demonstrated.

The NHS has guidance on using WhatsApp at work.

Using mobile messaging - NHS Transformation Directorate (england.nhs.uk)

In some circumstances, it is appropriate to use mobile messaging to communicate with colleagues and patients/service users. Where there is no practical alternative and the benefits outweigh the risk, it may be appropriate to use commercial, off-the-shelf applications. You should check with your IG team what your organisational policy is, such as whether it has approved a specific app for use, and in which circumstances.
Mobile messaging can be useful in health and care settings, particularly in emergency situations, but you should take sufficient steps to safeguard confidentiality.

• The mobile messaging conversation does not replace the formal health and care record. Instead, you must keep separate health and care records, transfer any clinical decisions communicated via mobile messaging as soon as possible and delete the original messaging notes.

• Remember that mobile messaging conversations may be subject to freedom of information (FOI) requests or subject access requests (SARs).

I wonder how much of that advice is given to Government Ministers

I wonder how much of that advice is given to Government Ministers

Would be great to know how much actual 'advice' they took.

Oh but we need the WaP messages for that......

the media coverage (and Mumsnet discussion) of this inquiry is focused on the Westminster gossip angle about "sleazy Boris Johnson", which I find ridiculous compared to actually engaging with the substance

I just find the relentless reporting on who sent WhatsApps to whom to be very frustrating, making it seem like some kind of Princess Diana-esque tabloid drama. I felt the same way about the month of reporting we had on which type of cake was served at which No. 10 office party.

This is classic trying to make the other side at fault.

Like It's all about some nosy, sleazy, gossiping, tabloid style enquiring. Not substance of course. 🙄

Boris just doesn't understand what the truth is. He lies automatically every time he speaks. Always has. Aways will.