NPR

SaintK wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 11:50 am Sunday Times out for more Hancock blood

Since March last year the former health secretary has routinely used a private account to conduct government business, concealing information from his own officials and potentially the public, according to documents obtained by The Sunday Times.
It means that the government does not hold records of much of Hancock’s decision-making, including negotiating multimillion-pound PPE contracts, setting up the £37 billion test and trace programme and overseeing the government’s care homes strategy.
The minutes record that David Williams, the department’s second permanent secretary, had warned about Hancock’s conduct, saying that he “only” deals with his private office “via Gmail account”. He stated that “the SOS [secretary of state] does not have a DHSC inbox” ...
Since the meeting, Hancock has been given an official email account, although two Whitehall sources said that he still preferred to use Gmail. This is considered to be a less traceable form of communication.

Lobby wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 1:59 pm

SaintK wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 11:50 am Sunday Times out for more Hancock blood

Since March last year the former health secretary has routinely used a private account to conduct government business, concealing information from his own officials and potentially the public, according to documents obtained by The Sunday Times.
It means that the government does not hold records of much of Hancock’s decision-making, including negotiating multimillion-pound PPE contracts, setting up the £37 billion test and trace programme and overseeing the government’s care homes strategy.
The minutes record that David Williams, the department’s second permanent secretary, had warned about Hancock’s conduct, saying that he “only” deals with his private office “via Gmail account”. He stated that “the SOS [secretary of state] does not have a DHSC inbox” ...
Since the meeting, Hancock has been given an official email account, although two Whitehall sources said that he still preferred to use Gmail. This is considered to be a less traceable form of communication.

Gove did the same when he was Education Secretary, primarily so his emails wouldn't be subject to FOI (IIRC the practice started when Brown was PM and was done for the same reason, ie to avoid FOI requests). The Information Commissioner came down strongly against this, and told the Government they had to make sure that if Ministers didn't use govt email addresses, all of their emails were still captured for the purposes of FOI. Seems like they are still trying to avoid being held accountable.

I like neeps wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:20 pm

Not good at all. Whoever put the camera up should be in big trouble!

GogLais wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 2:06 pm

Lobby wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 1:59 pm

SaintK wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 11:50 am Sunday Times out for more Hancock blood

Gove did the same when he was Education Secretary, primarily so his emails wouldn't be subject to FOI (IIRC the practice started when Brown was PM and was done for the same reason, ie to avoid FOI requests). The Information Commissioner came down strongly against this, and told the Government they had to make sure that if Ministers didn't use govt email addresses, all of their emails were still captured for the purposes of FOI. Seems like they are still trying to avoid being held accountable.

Really I think that's worse than what he's resigned for, sexual shenanigans and hypocrisy are par for the course but taking measures to avoid keeping records and proper scrutiny of his actions is verging on criminal.

salanya wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:24 pm Seeing as it was a proper 'fish-bowl' camera (i.e. visible rather than hidden), I think this focus on the existence of the camera in his office is just a deflection technique.

If ministers don't use their offices to snog/shag their mistresses, or do drugs or physically abuse anyone, there would be nothing of interest to see.

And obviously the current government minsters have no morals or standards, so perhaps they should be closely monitored to show the public what awful human beings they are.

Insane_Homer wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:38 am FamilyMan ORLY.JPG

Matt Hancock faces an investigation after using a personal email account instead of an official address during the pandemic in a breach of government guidelines.

Since March last year the former health secretary has routinely used a private account to conduct government business, concealing information from his own officials and potentially the public, according to documents obtained by The Sunday Times.

tabascoboy wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:21 am TV interview this morning, reportedly the Justice Secretary as good as said that standards don't matter because the PM is popular and some people just don't like that!

GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:24 am

tabascoboy wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:21 am TV interview this morning, reportedly the Justice Secretary as good as said that standards don't matter because the PM is popular and some people just don't like that!

Popular eh? Ask the people of Chesham.

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:47 am

GogLais wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:24 am

tabascoboy wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:21 am TV interview this morning, reportedly the Justice Secretary as good as said that standards don't matter because the PM is popular and some people just don't like that!

Popular eh? Ask the people of Chesham.

Trust me when I say you don't want to ask the opinion of the people of Chesham about anything ever.

tabascoboy wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:21 am TV interview this morning, reportedly the Justice Secretary as good as said that standards don't matter because the PM is popular and some people just don't like that!

NR: There is a sense that this government, in particular this prime minister, believes that the rules are for little people, standards are to be sneered at and ignored, provided the prime minister is ahead in the opinion polls. Is that the view of this government?

RB: I think it’s entirely the opposite of the truth. This government is all of the people’s priorities.

NR: I’m asking you about standards, not the people’s priorities, Mr Buckland, you well know. You see, there is an argument, and many people would have is, it doesn’t matter if the public don’t care about standards. Standards are standards. You’re a lawyer, you’re a justice secretary, I suspect you believe, to the very core of your being, that you should uphold the law and uphold the rules. I’m putting to you that that is not the spirit in Boris Johnson governs this country.

RB: I entirely disagree, I wouldn’t be in government, if I felt that the prime minister didn’t agree with me on those fundamental principles. He does.

And I think that, frankly, all the rest is just talk, and usually talk by people who have an agenda that clearly is against that of the prime minister.

I think the truth is a lot of people just don’t like the PM, and they veil their dislike in this sort of language. I think they can’t get over the fact that he is popular in the country and liked in the country, and has won a resounding election victory.

I suspect you believe, to the very core of your being, that you should uphold the law and uphold the rules. I’m putting to you that that is not the spirit in Boris Johnson governs this country.

RB: I entirely disagree, I wouldn’t be in government, if I felt that the prime minister didn’t agree with me on those fundamental principles. He does.

And I think that, frankly, all the rest is just talk, and usually talk by people who have an agenda that clearly is against that of the prime minister.

SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:12 am

tabascoboy wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:21 am TV interview this morning, reportedly the Justice Secretary as good as said that standards don't matter because the PM is popular and some people just don't like that!

Buckland is usually one of better Cabinet interviewees but Nick Robinson tore him a new one "Standards don't matter as Jonhson is popular" WTF!!!!

NR: There is a sense that this government, in particular this prime minister, believes that the rules are for little people, standards are to be sneered at and ignored, provided the prime minister is ahead in the opinion polls. Is that the view of this government?

RB: I think it’s entirely the opposite of the truth. This government is all of the people’s priorities.

NR: I’m asking you about standards, not the people’s priorities, Mr Buckland, you well know. You see, there is an argument, and many people would have is, it doesn’t matter if the public don’t care about standards. Standards are standards. You’re a lawyer, you’re a justice secretary, I suspect you believe, to the very core of your being, that you should uphold the law and uphold the rules. I’m putting to you that that is not the spirit in Boris Johnson governs this country.

RB: I entirely disagree, I wouldn’t be in government, if I felt that the prime minister didn’t agree with me on those fundamental principles. He does.

And I think that, frankly, all the rest is just talk, and usually talk by people who have an agenda that clearly is against that of the prime minister.

I think the truth is a lot of people just don’t like the PM, and they veil their dislike in this sort of language. I think they can’t get over the fact that he is popular in the country and liked in the country, and has won a resounding election victory.

The PM refused to say whether he had ever used a personal email account for government business. Asked if he had, he said:
I don’t comment on how I conduct government business. But I can tell you that we in this government are getting on with focusing on the people’s priorities.

SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:23 pm So that's a yes then!

The PM refused to say whether he had ever used a personal email account for government business. Asked if he had, he said:
I don’t comment on how I conduct government business. But I can tell you that we in this government are getting on with focusing on the people’s priorities.

salanya wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:26 pm

SaintK wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:23 pm So that's a yes then!

The PM refused to say whether he had ever used a personal email account for government business. Asked if he had, he said:
I don’t comment on how I conduct government business. But I can tell you that we in this government are getting on with focusing on the people’s priorities.

He also said today that Hancock had to go as he undermined the Covid messaging.

Which is why he fully backed him on Friday, and Hancock resigned himself on Saturday.

Was there ever a man more full of lies (and shite)?!

Boris Johnson has suggested he sacked Matt Hancock for breaking Covid rules - despite initially refusing to dismiss him and declaring the matter “closed”.
He made the extraordinary claim despite the disgraced health secretary making clear he had resigned on Saturday – 24 hours after the prime minister kept him in post.
Mr Hancock only walked the plank after the angry backlash from the public and some Conservative MPs convinced him he lacked all credibility in the pandemic-fighting role.
On Friday – when it emerged he had breached restrictions by kissing his aide, Gina Coladangelo, in his office – Downing Street accepted his apology and insisted there was no reason to sack him.
But, during a campaign visit to the Batley by-election, the Prime Minister claimed the departure had happened at “about the right pace” during a pandemic.

A third health minister, Helen Whately, used a private email account for government business, the Guardian can reveal, as the UK’s information watchdog said it was considering launching an investigation into the use of Gmail by Matt Hancock and James Bethell.

The Guardian can also reveal a number of emails were copied into Lord Bethell’s private email account. His address was copied into at least four official exchanges relating to a businessman who was attempting to get government contracts during the pandemic.

Johnson’s weekend:

The matter is closed.

Shit, polling shows people disagree with me.

The matter is open again, I accept your resignation.

Shit, polling shows they think I’m a disgraceful immoral twat with no standards.

I sacked him.

Insane_Homer wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:17 am

Insane_Homer wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:17 am

The Conservative peer who sponsored a parliamentary pass for Matt Hancock’s aide Gina Coladangelo is facing fresh calls to stand down after he failed to turn up to answer questions in the House of Lords.
The health minister Lord Bethell was absent from the upper chamber’s dispatch box on Monday after being referred to the standards watchdog after it emerged that he sponsored Coladangelo’s security pass last year even though she reportedly never worked for him, which would be against the rules.
Hancock and Coladangelo: questions that need answers
There have been calls for an investigation into claims that both Bethell and Hancock used personal email accounts for government business. Downing Street has disputed the claim.
One Conservative MP told the Guardian that the peer should stand down or be moved on by Boris Johnson. “Bethell went into government because he was Matt [Hancock]’s close friend and he wanted someone who he could trust working for him – so if the reason for him being there has gone … there’s an easy path to either move him or get rid of him.”

Rinkals wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:50 am

Insane_Homer wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:17 am

I'll need that explained to me.

I can't see any email addresses on that email that are not Government ones (apart from bethell.com who is a recipient).

It strikes me that claiming that certain emails do not exist is a bit rash (unless, of course, they don't exist) as once they are released into the wild there are bound to be multiple copies generated.

Rinkals wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:23 pm Thanks. I see what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense.

There are enough Government email addys being cc'd to make the point moot, though.

Also, the private email is the recipient. The point would carry a lot more weight if they could find an email discussing Government business sent from a private email rather than addressed to one from a Government account.

I take the point that Feldman should not be communicating on Government business to a private address, but there could be innocent reasons for this: perhaps his email software auto-filled the address, for instance.

If this is the strongest evidence for culpability and lack of truthfulness, I feel it's a little weak.

The private mobile number of Dominic Raab, the UK foreign secretary, has been online for at least 11 years, raising questions for the security services weeks after the prime minister’s number was also revealed to be accessible to anyone.

Raab’s number was discovered by a Guardian reader using a Google search. It appears to have been online since before he became an MP in 2010, and remained after he became foreign secretary and first secretary of state – de facto deputy prime minister – in 2019.

The web page showing the number also contained other personal details for Raab. It has since been removed following extensive correspondence with the website by the Guardian, and the number no longer appears online or via Google.

SaintK wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 3:39 pm Dominic Raab, the man who has been lecturing us and our allies on cybersecurity and minister responsible for MI6. As thick and stupid as our PM.

The private mobile number of Dominic Raab, the UK foreign secretary, has been online for at least 11 years, raising questions for the security services weeks after the prime minister’s number was also revealed to be accessible to anyone.

Raab’s number was discovered by a Guardian reader using a Google search. It appears to have been online since before he became an MP in 2010, and remained after he became foreign secretary and first secretary of state – de facto deputy prime minister – in 2019.

The web page showing the number also contained other personal details for Raab. It has since been removed following extensive correspondence with the website by the Guardian, and the number no longer appears online or via Google.

SaintK wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:31 pm

Rinkals wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:23 pm Thanks. I see what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense.

There are enough Government email addys being cc'd to make the point moot, though.

Also, the private email is the recipient. The point would carry a lot more weight if they could find an email discussing Government business sent from a private email rather than addressed to one from a Government account.

I take the point that Feldman should not be communicating on Government business to a private address, but there could be innocent reasons for this: perhaps his email software auto-filled the address, for instance.

If this is the strongest evidence for culpability and lack of truthfulness, I feel it's a little weak.

Should imagine it's the tip of the iceberg. Certainly Gove has been accused of using private e-mail addresses when he was at Education

Rinkals wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:08 pm

SaintK wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:31 pm

Rinkals wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:23 pm Thanks. I see what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense.

There are enough Government email addys being cc'd to make the point moot, though.

Also, the private email is the recipient. The point would carry a lot more weight if they could find an email discussing Government business sent from a private email rather than addressed to one from a Government account.

I take the point that Feldman should not be communicating on Government business to a private address, but there could be innocent reasons for this: perhaps his email software auto-filled the address, for instance.

If this is the strongest evidence for culpability and lack of truthfulness, I feel it's a little weak.

Should imagine it's the tip of the iceberg. Certainly Gove has been accused of using private e-mail addresses when he was at Education

I should imagine there are.

Which makes it all the more surprising that such a weak example has been tendered.

Won't necessarily change much, but that was perhaps the weakest #PMQs performance from Boris Johnson I can remember. Good tactic by Keir Starmer to allow PM space to makes jokes and then remind him of the seriousness of the impact of Covid rules on so many families.
More generally, even by standards of recent PMs, Johnson has given up even trying to look as if he is answering Starmer's questions. He is just sent out there with a collection of buzzwords and insults. Of course, #PMQs is partly theatre, but the impression is one of contempt.
It's also indicative of our post-shame political world that Johnson spent all #PMQs pretending he'd sacked Matt Hancock, when he didn't, and everyone listening – not least all the cheering Tory MPs – knew that he didn't. An almost Supreme Soviet-esque disregard for the truth.

SaintK wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am Looks like the blonde slug has completely given up on honesty and integrity at PMQ's. What a cunt of a man he is.

Won't necessarily change much, but that was perhaps the weakest #PMQs performance from Boris Johnson I can remember. Good tactic by Keir Starmer to allow PM space to makes jokes and then remind him of the seriousness of the impact of Covid rules on so many families.
More generally, even by standards of recent PMs, Johnson has given up even trying to look as if he is answering Starmer's questions. He is just sent out there with a collection of buzzwords and insults. Of course, #PMQs is partly theatre, but the impression is one of contempt.
It's also indicative of our post-shame political world that Johnson spent all #PMQs pretending he'd sacked Matt Hancock, when he didn't, and everyone listening – not least all the cheering Tory MPs – knew that he didn't. An almost Supreme Soviet-esque disregard for the truth.