Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages betweenI agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on.
goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
of absolutely nothing.
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
Personally I think it is remarkable that WhatsApp is not banned for any conversations regarding Official business. Having messages going via
foreign uncontrolled servers seems like a very serious security breach.
Jeff
On 23 Jan 2024 at 10:19:47 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between >>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informalI agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on. >>
conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic. >>>
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the
English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
of absolutely nothing.
They are widely used to prove thoughtcrimes or Wrong Attitudes against politicians.
On Monday 22 January 2024 at 21:43:05 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between
goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
--
Roger Hayter
It is good governance to apply retention periods to information after which it
gets deleted.
It is perhaps untenable to think that the principle of good governance was behind this when nothing else was subject to good governance.
On 23 Jan 2024 at 12:53:03 GMT, "Dr Dave" <david.christopher.astles@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday 22 January 2024 at 21:43:05 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between >>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic. >>>
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
--
Roger Hayter
It is good governance to apply retention periods to information after which it
gets deleted.
It is perhaps untenable to think that the principle of good governance was >> behind this when nothing else was subject to good governance.
<font color="#d6d6d6">Are all conversations between politicians to be minuted and retained? Are all conversations between civil servants to be minuted and retained? I understand that conversations between civil servants and politicians should be minuted and retained, but this is not a verbatim record but an agreed minute. And I'm unsure if it applies even to casual conversations.</font>
Whatever the answers to these questions, I feel the same answers should apply to encrypted electronic conversations. They are so much cheaper and more convenient than having to arrange personal meetings that they should be encouraged rather then discouraged by the rules
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic.
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 10:19:54 UTC, kat wrote:
On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between >>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informalI agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on. >>
conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic. >>>
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the
English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
of absolutely nothing.
Not sure what you mean by proof of nothing. They're proof of the discussions which
were taking place, and a rather more reliable source of evidence then the hazy
recollections of the unwritten discussions.
On 23 Jan 2024 at 09:22:37 GMT, "Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between >>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal
conversations are not normally minuted?
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic. >>>
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss.
Personally I think it is remarkable that WhatsApp is not banned for any
conversations regarding Official business. Having messages going via
foreign uncontrolled servers seems like a very serious security breach.
Jeff
If you believe the owners of Whatsapp only the addressee(s), not the server, has access to the decrypted message.
On Wednesday 24 January 2024 at 10:08:45 UTC, kat wrote:
On 23/01/2024 18:06, David McNeish wrote:
On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 10:19:54 UTC, kat wrote:It would be weird if no discussions were taking place, and we can even assume
On 22/01/2024 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Is it consistent with good governance to delete Whatsapp messages between >>>>> goverment politicians and officials, on the same basis that informal >>>>> conversations are not normally minuted?I agree, people should be able to chat, raise odd points, and then move on.
I gather the Scottish CMO recommended (and did) this during the pandemic. >>>>>
I think it is appropriate to delete such messages, because it is a great waste
of time if every informal conversation has to be in person so that people can
speak frankly.
Is there any clear law relating to this?
I do realise that not recording *decisions* in writing would be remiss. >>>>>
But, as the Scottish Government WhatsApp messsages are gone, then all the >>>> English ones must now be ignored as well - for the same reason. They are proof
of absolutely nothing.
Not sure what you mean by proof of nothing. They're proof of the discussions which
were taking place, and a rather more reliable source of evidence then the hazy
recollections of the unwritten discussions.
that there were spoken discussions too. It is after all much easier to say more
when spreaking than when typing - no doubt with some interesting predictive text
mistakes.
In whatsapp this morning my daughter linked to a lego set that made her think of
her dad. Inference could be, should we get it for his birthday, or, is he ever
going to sort out that shelf in his study. I know this because I know the
background, unwritten. But you don't.
You can make assumptions from a few words of written chat and get it entirely
wrong. They don't prove a thing.
The copies of the messages prove what the messages were. I agree you can't make assumptions based purely on them, but that isn't what the inquiry is doing -
the relevant parties are coming in as witnesses and being questioned about the
context of the messages and the other communication and decision-making
which was going on.
Are you suggesting the inquiry ought to pretend the archives of the messages don't exist?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 42:47:54 |
| Calls: | 6,709 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,353,935 |