The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

WhatsApp is "banned" in most departments. But I'm not sure if it is in cabinet office, and can at least see why it might not be. But don't know. Simon Case does not come across well.

And WhatsApp for the politicians is pretty much standard I think.

CabO has a policy for its use See lengthy ramblings in previous post:-)

[Prufrock]

I try to avoid the Self Promotion Project wherever possible but will have a look tomorrow.

[BWFC_Insane]

So my point that surely WhatsApp isn’t allowed for sensitive government business was correct. But no action will be taken because ‘it’s not illegal’. Since when was the requirement for action legality?

They don’t abide by their own guidelines but there is no penalty or enforcement for that? I’m arguing that’s wrong. They are the highest level of business and should be treated with those standards not a shrug of the shoulders when things happen that would not be tolerated anywhere else. Especially by them. Let’s see their reaction when something like this happens elsewhere. They won’t be shrugging their shoulders. It will be pure outrage.

Either discussing business sensitive government critical info on WhatsApp is allowed in their IT security policy or it isn’t. I never once claimed it was ‘illegal’. But if ‘illegality’ is the only sackable offence then the good law project have millions of customers.

[Worthy4England]

So my point that surely WhatsApp isn’t allowed for sensitive government business was correct. But no action will be taken because ‘it’s not illegal’. Since when was the requirement for action legality?

They don’t abide by their own guidelines but there is no penalty or enforcement for that? I’m arguing that’s wrong. They are the highest level of business and should be treated with those standards not a shrug of the shoulders when things happen that would not be tolerated anywhere else. Especially by them. Let’s see their reaction when something like this happens elsewhere. They won’t be shrugging their shoulders. It will be pure outrage.

Either discussing business sensitive government critical info on WhatsApp is allowed in their IT security policy or it isn’t. I never once claimed it was ‘illegal’. But if ‘illegality’ is the only sackable offence then the good law project have millions of customers.

Well ain't this fun!

The things you are contending change over time - you started off with whether everyone who used WhatsApp should be dismissed and that you didn't believe Govt/Civil Service security (whoever they are in the context of this) permits it. My view then and my view now is still "no." There would be insufficient grounds to sack someone just for using it. For reasons I've explained.

Your point that WhatsApp "isn't allowed" for sensitive government business is not as easy as right or wrong, in the way you are expressing it, despite there being a policy on it - and that's part of where the issue lies. Their policies are all over the place, even in areas that might appear fairly clear. For example the "cut off" point for Whatsapp in their Whatsapp policy was fairly loosely worded and acknowledged that conversations on Whatsapp might "unexpectedly develop" and at that point should move to No10 IT systems...What is the measure of when something has unexpectedly developed to the point it should move? I'm not asking for an opinion - point me in any document where it's explicit that tells you how to measure when you've got to that point. I think at best you might find something that is open to interpretation. Also the definition of sensitive government business is not at all clear (there isn't such a designation in HMG's asset classifications only your generality).

Working through your questions - there is are no specific requirements in this instance, that I'm aware of, for legality to be the test of whether to take action in the sense you're conveying. On the flip side of that, there are no specific requirements that force the government (or I suspect a private business) to take action (unless some law has been broken) for a breach of their own policy - this is effectively where GLP were heading in their as yet unsuccessful court action - broadly that the Government had a duty to act in line with their own policies - not so, said the courts. You may argue that's wrong, I might agree, but this is where it's at - it's not legally wrong, only in your opinion wrong.

As for lets see their reaction when it happens elsewhere, they were quite happy for DHSC to take a rap from the ICO in the report I've pointed you at, which discusses this very topic - albeit the rap was not specifically about using Whatsapp, it was more about ability to keep records.

The last point is moot if they don't have a legal obligation to apply their own policy. Certainly businesses will often leave themselves a "discretion" options in their policies with phrases like "X may be a disciplinary/sackable offence", whether they choose to use it as such, is up to them, even if they're more likely to use it than not. That's in part why the GLP "doesn't have millions of customers" but that's the counter of what we're discussing.

[BWFC_Insane]

So my point that surely WhatsApp isn’t allowed for sensitive government business was correct. But no action will be taken because ‘it’s not illegal’. Since when was the requirement for action legality?

They don’t abide by their own guidelines but there is no penalty or enforcement for that? I’m arguing that’s wrong. They are the highest level of business and should be treated with those standards not a shrug of the shoulders when things happen that would not be tolerated anywhere else. Especially by them. Let’s see their reaction when something like this happens elsewhere. They won’t be shrugging their shoulders. It will be pure outrage.

Either discussing business sensitive government critical info on WhatsApp is allowed in their IT security policy or it isn’t. I never once claimed it was ‘illegal’. But if ‘illegality’ is the only sackable offence then the good law project have millions of customers.

Well ain't this fun!

The things you are contending change over time - you started off with whether everyone who used WhatsApp should be dismissed and that you didn't believe Govt/Civil Service security (whoever they are in the context of this) permits it. My view then and my view now is still "no." There would be insufficient grounds to sack someone just for using it. For reasons I've explained.

That's not what I've said. I was specific in what usage I meant. Not just 'using it'.

But we're getting into a discussion about what constitutes 'sensitive business' and how explicit policies are.

I don't think that really is the issue. Should they be using whatsapp in the way its been used? No is the answer. Is it clear enough in their policies - yes is the answer.

But I think you're basically arguing that because they are government then nothing really applies unless its nailed down. Which is true. But that is wrong. IMHO.

[Worthy4England]

There's no point me recanting what I've already said in detail. There's enough published information out there. I doubt sacking the entirety of CabO would give more than it would take away (I'd lay a fairly hefty wager they've all had government business discussions via private or approved messaging apps). So I think you'd need to consider each case on its merits.

There are plenty of questions that I'd like to see answers to...

[TANGODANCER]

Oh dear Boris. Talk about cooking your own goose. And this man was our P.M.?

[Worthy4England]

Oh dear Boris. Talk about cooking your own goose. And this man was our P.M.?

I didn't understand the rules my government set for others under my direction as leader...Not the greatest pitch...

[boltonboris]

His defence is going to be "I'm a fvckin idiot" and people will buy it

[Worthy4England]

His defence is going to be "I'm a fvckin idiot" and people will buy it

Not unreasonable that they buy it - it's close to the mark!

[boltonboris]

Oh absolutely.. What I should have said is, that people will accept it.. "oh that bloody Boris. What a character!"

[BWFC_Insane]

Oh absolutely.. What I should have said is, that people will accept it.. "oh that bloody Boris. What a character!"

I think people have made up their minds. He has a group of supporters. Like Trump - exactly like Trump - who will defend whatever nonsense leaves his mouth. They won't change their minds whatever and neither will his opponents.

End of the day he was never some hugely popular person - his personal polling ratings were lower than any PM in the last 30 years and I don't think there is a majority who will say 'oh let him off' its just the noisier ones will do.

[BWFC_Insane]

His defence is going to be "I'm a fvckin idiot" and people will buy it

Not unreasonable that they buy it - it's close to the mark!

He's not stupid though. He's not thick. He's clever, manipulative and a pathological liar. I'd say he's dangerous because he manages to fool people into thinking he's a harmless bumbling fool. When he's actually sinister and uses the act to hide his real motives.

Anyone who for one second thinks anything he's come out with is at all reasonable or 'yeah maybe' probably should be sectioned. Because lets be honest - IF anyone buys his defence it means they believe a PM isn't capable of making a decision, understanding a basic rule or law or even making a statement. Its drivel. But his whole life he's spent trying to avoid and shirk responsibility for pretty much everything he's done. This is no different.

[TANGODANCER]

He's not stupid though. He's not thick. He's clever, manipulative and a pathological liar. I'd say he's dangerous because he manages to fool people into thinking he's a harmless bumbling fool. When he's actually sinister and uses the act to hide his real motives.

So who are the real fools here then, and what exactly are his real motives??

[BWFC_Insane]

He's not stupid though. He's not thick. He's clever, manipulative and a pathological liar. I'd say he's dangerous because he manages to fool people into thinking he's a harmless bumbling fool. When he's actually sinister and uses the act to hide his real motives.

So who are the real fools here then, and what exactly are his real motives??

I mean pretty obviously that he wanted power and wanted to hide his anti democratic tendencies with his act. Johnson was attempting to be unseatable - a PM for as long as he wanted to be. In control of large portions of the media. His attitude was and always has been he shouldn't be answerable to anyone else.

[TANGODANCER]

Okay. Here's my view as a person pretty uneducated in the finer mechanics of government and law appertaining to such (which actually makes me on a par with most,but honest about it,regarding Boris the Bold.

1. The British love to support the underdog and wide swathes of society seem to deliberately go against sense and law abidance, thus they support any non-conformist views on anything relating to common sense and the greater good. Boris fits the bill.

2. Boris is a character and the Brits love such as proven by the trillions who seem to think soap operas are actual reality. This fostered by media offerings such as Love Island,The only way is Essex and the utter piffle written about such in comments sections. Add the fact that a fair percent of commenters are still at school and Boris bumbles his way to popularity (and worse, votes).

3. People who support his choice of tie colour and with no other hero in view, will muddy the water further from indecision and see it all as jolly good fun. A modern day Dennis the menace in all but having a catapult in his back pocket. Add that he'll be seen as a victim by many and we're back to point 1.

So...... The Alternatives. After a few hundred years, still searching to find a clear-cut standout cabinet where actions are so much louder than words that they can't be denied. Boris is hardly of the heroic mould that Drake, Nelson, Montgomery and Churchill aspired to as children of Albion. But he makes people laugh......

[BWFC_Insane]

Okay. Here's my view as a person pretty uneducated in the finer mechanics of government and law appertaining to such (which actually makes me on a par with most,but honest about it,regarding Boris the Bold.

1. The British love to support the underdog and wide swathes of society seem to deliberately go against sense and law abidance, thus they support any non-conformist views on anything relating to common sense and the greater good. Boris fits the bill.

2. Boris is a character and the Brits love such as proven by the trillions who seem to think soap operas are actual reality. This fostered by media offerings such as Love Island,The only way is Essex and the utter piffle written about such in comments sections. Add the fact that a fair percent of commenters are still at school and Boris bumbles his way to popularity (and worse, votes).

3. People who support his choice of tie colour and with no other hero in view, will muddy the water further from indecision and see it all as jolly good fun. A modern day Dennis the menace in all but having a catapult in his back pocket. Add that he'll be seen as a victim by many and we're back to point 1.

So...... The Alternatives. After a few hundred years, still searching to find a clear-cut standout cabinet where actions are so much louder than words that they can't be denied. Boris is hardly of the heroic mould that Drake, Nelson, Montgomery and Churchill aspired to as children of Albion. But he makes people laugh......

Johnson was never actually very popular...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/despite-what- ... 6D2bHld0z5

[Hoboh]

Johnson was never actually very popular...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/despite-what- ... 6D2bHld0z5

A bit more than Comrade Corbyn though I suspect.

[Prufrock]

He certainly wasn't popular with those "still at school".

[BWFC_Insane]

Johnson was never actually very popular...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/despite-what- ... 6D2bHld0z5

A bit more than Comrade Corbyn though I suspect.

That's the exact point. He was only popular relative to the alternative. But never popular. His ratings were lower than almost any PM you can think of.