Matt Hancock has been caught getting a Hancock

[Raja Clavata]

There is also the revelation that Hancock, and apparently others, are using personal email in the discharge of their responsibilities in their Government offices and departments. This is presumably to hinder an audit trail and I suspect motivated by dealings which would not stand up to scrutiny.

Either way, I understand it's strictly against Ministerial code, even corporate organisations typically don't allow this kind of thing.

If the Defence Ministry lot are adopting the same approach then they may as well be doing a public briefing on all classified matters on a daily / weekly basis. Utter shambles and reprehensible behaviour IMHO.

Not too long ago there was plenty talk about draining the swamp (normally in relation to the EU and those opposed to Brexit), seems an apt phrase to apply here it would seem.

[12gauge82]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

There is also the revelation that Hancock, and apparently others, are using personal email in the discharge of their responsibilities in their Government offices and departments. This is presumably to hinder an audit trail and I suspect motivated by dealings which would not stand up to scrutiny.

Either way, I understand it's strictly against Ministerial code, even corporate organisations typically don't allow this kind of thing.

If the Defence Ministry lot are adopting the same approach then they may as well be doing a public briefing on all classified matters on a daily / weekly basis. Utter shambles and reprehensible behaviour IMHO.

Not too long ago there was plenty talk about draining the swamp (normally in relation to the EU and those opposed to Brexit), seems an apt phrase to apply here it would seem.

Good point. I'm amazed at the reliance on what's app. I know its supposed to be encrypted but its a private company at the end of the day, just how secure is it really? 

[Yellow Bear]

One must remember in these cases that "the Government" is the civil service, many of the senior members of which are undeniable more than a little left leaning and will take any opportunity to discredit the current majority elected representatives.

[Raja Clavata]

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Good point. I'm amazed at the reliance on what's app. I know its supposed to be encrypted but its a private company at the end of the day, just how secure is it really? 

It is E2E encrypted but GCHQ and a host of other agencies and almost certainly other actors know how to crack it. I forget what event it was in the UK, ISIS related terror if I recall correctly, but there was a load of fuss in the press about the government and security services being concerned about the encryption on WA - it was a ruse to get those half baked terrorist nut jobs to use it. All the organised crime gangs already knew it was as leaky as the press and were on other platforms.

So, to answer your question directly, not very. 

That said, without going off on too much of a tangent, Telegram is not E2E encrypted by default whereas Signal is. In fact the Signal encryption is open source, WhatsApp encryption is based off Signal but not open source (at least that's my understanding).

Disclaimer: I'm not a cybersecurity expert but I work with eminent people in the field across a number of industries.

[12gauge82]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

It is E2E encrypted but GCHQ and a host of other agencies and almost certainly other actors know how to crack it. I forget what event it was in the UK, ISIS related terror if I recall correctly, but there was a load of fuss in the press about the government and security services being concerned about the encryption on WA - it was a ruse to get those half baked terrorist nut jobs to use it. All the organised crime gangs already knew it was as leaky as the press and were on other platforms.

So, to answer your question directly, not very. 

That said, without going off on too much of a tangent, Telegram is not E2E encrypted by default whereas Signal is. In fact the Signal encryption is open source, WhatsApp encryption is based off Signal but not open source (at least that's my understanding).

Disclaimer: I'm not a cybersecurity expert but I work with eminent people in the field across a number of industries.

I've never doubted spooks could access that sort of info if they wanted to. 

Interesting response thanks. 

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

One must remember in these cases that "the Government" is the civil service, many of the senior members of which are undeniable more than a little left leaning and will take any opportunity to discredit the current majority elected representatives.

That being the case - they are still subject to the law.  In this case - I suspect - as the 'data' (even if video data from a security camera) will be probably be subject to the Official Secrets Act (OSA), and also almost certainly the Data Protection Act.

In either case I believe unauthorised disclosure is a criminal offence.  It is also probably a breach of contract if carried out by an employee.

[Vince Green]

19 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Good point. I'm amazed at the reliance on what's app. I know its supposed to be encrypted but its a private company at the end of the day, just how secure is it really? 

I suspect there is a lot of justifiable distrust of  each other within the corridors of power. (Which in Matt Hancock's case appears to have been very justified.) and ministers wanting to keep their conversations away from the eyes of their colleagues    

[Yellow Bear]

21 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

That being the case - they are still subject to the law.  In this case - I suspect - as the 'data' (even if video data from a security camera) will be probably be subject to the Official Secrets Act (OSA), and also almost certainly the Data Protection Act.

In either case I believe unauthorised disclosure is a criminal offence.  It is also probably a breach of contract if carried out by an employee.

I quite agree, however, when those doing the investigating do not want to find the culprit any investigation is doomed.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Yellow Bear said:

I quite agree, however, when those doing the investigating do not want to find the culprit any investigation is doomed.

Yes, that is possible, though I would think that the investigations in this instance will be in the hands of 'security specialists' (i.e. a part of the security services) - and they are chosen for the ability to 'do the job' without any bias. 

[clangerman]

as nothing is more toxic to voters than trying to destroy family’s whoever is behind it has the public’s full support making them bullet proof and rightly so 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, clangerman said:

making them bullet proof and rightly so

Anyone who breaks the law should not be "bullet proof".

[WalkedUp]

It is being reported they have both abandoned their families to shack up together. My wife doesn’t agree with me that a mother who abandons her children is far worse than a man doing so. It is an abomination of nature and, for me, a bolter is the only thing more disgusting than a poisonous harlot spreading her legs to tempt a family man.

[clangerman]

2 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

It is being reported they have both abandoned their families to shack up together. My wife doesn’t agree with me that a mother who abandons her children is far worse than a man doing so. It is an abomination of nature and, for me, a bolter is the only thing more disgusting than a poisonous harlot spreading her legs to tempt a family man.

you have excellent morals young man good on you 

[enfieldspares]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The Hancock leak was without doubt deliberate - and as such I hope someone feels the full force of the law. 

No. It is in the public interest to expose a Minister of the Crown who thinks that the law applies ONLY to "the little people". It is clear that on the date the incident took place that it was in breach of the law relating to covid AND also Hancock himself had condemned one of his own experts for the very same thing earlier in the pandemic. It matters not that it was a grope what matters is that close contact as occurred was at that time in breach oh the covid trestrictions Hancock himself had voted to impose on us all. That is his "crime" not being caught out philandering but being caught breaching his own Government's covid law. And if the "leaker" is to be prosecuted then so also should the "lecher" aka Matt Hancock exposed by that "leaker".

Edited June 27, 2021 by enfieldspares

[Vince Green]

38 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

I quite agree, however, when those doing the investigating do not want to find the culprit any investigation is doomed.

Apparantly they know who leaked it and my money is firmly on Gove. You can be sure he left no evidence trail though

Edited June 27, 2021 by Vince Green

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

No. It is in the public interest

Whether it is in the public interest or not is immaterial.  If the law was broken - the penalties should apply and that applies to Hancock as well.  It is not right that some third party who has a grudge can destroy someone's marriage, family and career by publishing data that is legally protected.  If the data thief believed laws (i.e. social distancing/lockdown laws) had been broken, pass the information to the appropriate law enforcers - not the press.

If Mr & Mrs Hancocks marriage was failing (which it seems it was), they should have been allowed to arrange for family and friends to be informed and the information made public in a way that protected the interests of the family and children.  Not have it plastered all over the newspapers.

[Walker570]

18 hours ago, oowee said:

And part of a morally corrupt govt of the highest order.

Correction...apart from a very small number. a morally corrupt political class. All snouts in trough and most never had a proper job.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Walker570

[12gauge82]

22 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Whether it is in the public interest or not is immaterial.  If the law was broken - the penalties should apply and that applies to Hancock as well.  It is not right that some third party who has a grudge can destroy someone's marriage, family and career by publishing data that is legally protected.  If the data thief believed laws (i.e. social distancing/lockdown laws) had been broken, pass the information to the appropriate law enforcers - not the press.

If Mr & Mrs Hancocks marriage was failing (which it seems it was), they should have been allowed to arrange for family and friends to be informed and the information made public in a way that protected the interests of the family and children.  Not have it plastered all over the newspapers.

The problem is though that when the law isn't applied fairly, vigilante action will occur, it is part of the very reason laws are invented. You know full well if someone had complained internally, particularly if they were a more junior person, it would have gone under the rug. They haven't released any national secrets (if they had I'd be calling for the most severe of punishments possible). 

But the biggest crime in all this is to the general public of the UK, the very man responsible for signing off on some of the most draconian and severly restrictive laws imposed on innocent people other than maybe war time, was breaking his own rules. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by 12gauge82

[JohnfromUK]

35 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

They haven't released any national secrets

No, but there are channels that should be used - not the front page of the newspapers - where it is there for all his children etc to see.  I imagine that the Permanent Secretary (who would escalate as appropriate to presumably the Cabinet Secretary) would be the place to go, but admit I'm not sure as I have never been in that position (thankfully!)

In my career - there were 'Ethics Departments' who could (and did) deal with things like this.  I know of a case (not in my employer, but given to us as a true example in our 'Ethics Training) where a VERY senior executive in a BIG USA corporation on a multi million dollar salary was fired for a broadly similar 'ethics offence'.

The problem with leaking to the press is that the leaker (and to some extent the newspaper editor) takes the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner - and that is not right.

Edited June 27, 2021 by JohnfromUK

[12gauge82]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

No, but there are channels that should be used - not the front page of the newspapers - where it is there for all his children etc to see.  I imagine that the Permanent Secretary (who would escalate as appropriate to presumably the Cabinet Secretary) would be the place to go, but admit I'm not sure as I have never been in that position (thankfully!)

In my career - there were 'Ethics Departments' who could (and did) deal with things like this.  I know of a case (not in my employer, but given to us as a true example in our 'Ethics Training) where a VERY senior executive in a BIOG USA corporation on a multi million dollar salary was fired for a broadly similar 'ethics offence'.

The problem with leaking to the press is that the leaker (and to some extent the newspaper editor) takes the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner - and that is not right.

If it'd been up to the Conservative party he'd have stayed and no one would ever have known. The leaker would have known that, it is absolutely in the publics interest that one of the very men responsible for their house arrest over the last year was breaking the law himself. 

I totally get your point on national security, but in this instance I believe the biggest crime by far was committed by Hancock. 

[Scully]

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

No, but there are channels that should be used - not the front page of the newspapers - where it is there for all his children etc to see.  I imagine that the Permanent Secretary (who would escalate as appropriate to presumably the Cabinet Secretary) would be the place to go, but admit I'm not sure as I have never been in that position (thankfully!)

In my career - there were 'Ethics Departments' who could (and did) deal with things like this.  I know of a case (not in my employer, but given to us as a true example in our 'Ethics Training) where a VERY senior executive in a BIOG USA corporation on a multi million dollar salary was fired for a broadly similar 'ethics offence'.

The problem with leaking to the press is that the leaker (and to some extent the newspaper editor) takes the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner - and that is not right.

Totally agree. I have absolutely no sympathy for Hancock whatsoever, he’s a big boy now and while he’s not the first nor will he be the last, to play away, and bearing in mind just what a dirty game politics is, I can’t believe he has been stupid enough to do it in view of CCTV. 
Those I have sympathy for are his children and his wife, the latter of whom has been humiliated in front of a nationwide audience. 
Those whom have leaked this footage to the press are beneath contempt, and have had about as much regard for the feelings of Hancock’s wife and children as he has had. 
I can’t understand the mindset  of someone who viewing this has thought ‘let’s send this to the Sun’. I wish them restless nights, struggling with their conscience. 

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I totally get your point on national security, but in this instance I believe the biggest crime by far was committed by Hancock.

I entirely agree Hancock was in the wrong and should have resigned.  I also agree it isn't a party issue ...... though judging by the various party people who have come out against him, I think that your suggestion that "he'd have stayed and no one would ever have known" may be wrong?

I don't agree that the leaker should have plastered the state of his marriage all over the front page of the papers.  I believe there would be civil service routes (i.e. either senior civil servants or ethics people).  It was suggested earlier that civil servants are 'left leaning' - well - in this instance - that may have been an advantage to the leaker!

[clangerman]

if you keep your knickers on it’s impossible for your children to be upset so let’s have no excuses the only ones at fault here are these two pieces of rubbish you can’t leak a vid that’s shows nothing taking place so all SELF inflicted 

[bruno22rf]

I think the fuss is all over, the Government have assured us that her legs were 2 metres apart most of the time.

[oowee]

13 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I entirely agree Hancock was in the wrong and should have resigned.  I also agree it isn't a party issue ...... though judging by the various party people who have come out against him, I think that your suggestion that "he'd have stayed and no one would ever have known" may be wrong?

I don't agree that the leaker should have plastered the state of his marriage all over the front page of the papers.  I believe there would be civil service routes (i.e. either senior civil servants or ethics people).  It was suggested earlier that civil servants are 'left leaning' - well - in this instance - that may have been an advantage to the leaker!

Not a party issue???? The leader of the rabble thinks his actions are perfectly ok?????

There was a time when the tory party were the ones to take a moral high ground now they have no ground to take.