Adam Boulton: Politicians are drawn to WhatsApp – it may stop us ever knowing whole truth

Published

3 years ago

June 2, 2023

admin

Matt Hancock, who resigned as health secretary in the midst of the pandemic, and his memoir’s co-author Isabel Oakeshott, who subsequently handed over confidential information he gave her to The Daily Telegraph, have both come under heavy public criticism.

But they also performed one important public service by revealing the central role played by WhatsApp for communications between ministers and others during the crisis.

The cache of over 100,000 messages – more than two million words’ worth – which Mr Hancock downloaded from his phone and gave to Ms Oakeshott, provided the substance for their self-justifying book Pandemic Diaries and for the revelations in The Telegraph’s Lockdown Files reporting.

Thanks to Ms Oakeshott’s betrayal, the Hancock messages are effectively in the public domain.

So what about all the other informal communications in 2020, 2021 and 2022 inside government during COVID-19? Surely they should be gathered in the evidence for Baroness Hallet’s official UK COVID-19 Inquiry, which will start hearings in a few weeks’ time?

Lady Hallet has already assured “the bereaved that this inquiry is in the process of obtaining all relevant WhatsApp messages from all relevant groups, not just those from Mr Hancock”.

The government must be regretting giving Heather Hallet, a retired justice of appeal, such a wide-ranging remit for her inquiry. Alongside other vital matters such as how the health services dealt with patients and the pandemic, she is instructed to examine “how decisions were made, communicated, recorded, and implemented” in “the public health response across the UK.”

This puts Boris Johnson, his ministers and their advisers in her sights from the very start of the pandemic.

On Thursday, the government took the remarkable decision to take legal action against the inquiry it set up in an attempt to avoid handing over the unredacted emails of the then prime minister, Mr Johnson.

The bitter tussle over disclosure involves Lady Hallet, Mr Johnson, the courts, the Cabinet Office, and ultimately the current prime minister, Rishi Sunak.

Yet the nature of modern communication means whatever is handed over cannot give a full picture. Messaging by WhatsApp is an easy option for hard-pressed ministers and an invitation for ill-judged comments.

It also usually leaves a trail, if that can be accessed. WhatsApp messages can also be lost or deleted, or conducted in other conversations on undetected devices.

Lady Hallett is taking a tough line. She insists it is not up to the Cabinet Office to decide what internal government communications and messages, formal and informal, are relevant to her inquiry.

She wants to see everything: WhatsApp exchanges, emails, minutes, notes and diaries, “including the other (superficially unrelated) political matters they were concerned with at the time” – because it is possible a minister dealt with COVID matters “inadequately because he or she was focussing (perhaps inappropriately) on other issues.”

Before modern digital communications, it was simpler to keep track of how official decisions were reached. Most of the discussions or ideas were written down by those involved or recorded by their aides. Even telephone calls on direct lines were listened into and minuted.

Of course, important off-the-record conversations took place. But there was a generally respected code of honour that politicians would stand by their word, under oath, if required.

Smartphones have changed all that. There is little trust in what those in government say or say they have said. Personal phones and email servers have made it easier to avoid official channels and to express views casually. It is easier to dash off a hasty text message than to write a memo or to have a formal conversation.

Many involved in politics have been attracted to WhatsApp in particular by its promise of confidentiality through “end-to-end encryption”. As a result, WhatsApp records are often at the centre of contemporary demands for evidence, including from the COVID-19 Inquiry.

Even emails are old hat. Only yesterday, one senior official asked me for another’s mobile number, so they could send them a WhatsApp complaining “they never answer my emails”. Do they even read them? Nobody actually answers a telephone call these days. Until 20 years ago, the work of a political reporter was carried out essentially at first hand, through conversations face to face or on the phone. Now most communications take place in text message form on phones, most of it on WhatsApp.

Paradoxically, as the Hancock files demonstrated, there is no privacy if WhatsApp trails can be accessed at either end. If an end-user’s phone can be opened, it is easy to recover an account of what was really said in chains of messages in numerous WhatsApp groups.

Many news stories in recent years have been based on what people have said to each other on WhatsApp. Hence, the contortions by former health minister Lord Bethell explaining why he had deleted or lost messages on his phones and the celebrated case of Rebekah Vardy’s agent’s phone dropping into the North Sea.

MPs are among those making increased use of the facility which automatically deletes messages after a set time. This is a genuine threat to ever being able to assemble a proper record in an inquiry. A bid to ban the practice of message self-destruction by ministers failed in the UK courts.

The government’s proposal to legislate against encryption in the Online Safety Bill has no bearing on disclosures through end users. It would allow security services to scrutinise messages without the knowledge of those communicating. WhatsApp says it would rather shut down in the UK than hand such power to the authorities. Its parent company Meta has floated extending encryption to Facebook and Instagram.

In its advice on data handling for doctors, the British Medical Association noted that international or US based companies, such as Meta, can never be fully subject to UK law.

A year ago, the Institute for Government blamed WhatsApp for poor decisions based on incomplete information, for making record keeping more difficult and for undermining accountability and transparency. Regulators and watchdog organisations accept however that it is impractical to disinvent, or completely ban the use of, personal phones and email accounts and WhatsApp.

In the wake of Mr Hancock’s resignation, the UK Information Commission Office issued “a reprimand” to the Department of Health (DHSC) for insufficient data protection. Commissioner John Edwards is leading calls for stronger guardrails to be put in place.

Civil servants have been issued with a colour code on the use NCCCs (non-corporate communications channels). It is in the red zone to use personal devices or emails for “secret” or “top secret” information. As so often in this country, rules for civil servants are merely guidelines for elected politicians. Disciplining ministers is subject to the whim of the prime minister.

That explains why Mr Johnson passed his records back to the Cabinet Office rather than directly to the COVID-19 Inquiry, gift-wrapped with the unhelpful suggestion to “urgently disclose” them. In practice, Mr Johnson put that tricky decision, and the controversial legal bid to protect his WhatsApp privacy, back in the hands of his rival Rishi Sunak.

In launching its appeal this week, the Cabinet Office revealed that it had only seen Mr Johnson’s WhatsApp messages from May 2021, 18 months after the pandemic began. Prior to that, he used a different personal phone which he has not made available, raising questions over how frank he intends to be.

Mr Hancock and Ms Oakeshott are not the only ones who think that official information, of interest to the public, is something to be manipulated for their own ends. WhatsApp is a powerful tool, but the trails of information it leaves behind do not tell the whole truth.

World

Israel approves 19 new Jewish settlements in occupied West Bank

Published

4 hours ago

December 21, 2025

admin

Israel approves 19 new Jewish settlements in occupied West Bank

Israel has approved 19 new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank in a fresh blow to the possibility of a Palestinian state.

The move brings the number of new settlements over the past few years to 69, a new record, according to Israel‘s far-right finance minister Betzalel Smotrich.

Widely considered illegal under international law, the settlements have been criticised for fragmenting the territory of a future Palestinian state by confiscating land and displacing residents.

Under Israel’s current government, figures show, the number of settlements in the West Bank has surged by nearly 50%, rising from 141 in 2022, to 210 with the new approvals, according to Peace Now, an anti-settlement watchdog.

The government’s latest action retroactively authorises some previously-established outposts or neighbourhoods of existing settlements, and the creation of settlements on land where Palestinians were evacuated.

It also approves Kadim and Ganim, two of the four settlements dismantled in 2005, and which Israelis were previously banned from re-entering as part of Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Since Israel repealed the 2005 act in March 2023, there have been multiple attempts to resettle them.

The move comes amid mounting pressure from the US to move ahead with the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, which took effect on 10 October.

Mr Smotrich is one of a number of figures now prominent in Israel’s government who back the settlements.

The West Bank, east Jerusalem, and Gaza are claimed by the Palestinians for their future state, but were captured by Israel in the 1967 war.

Today over 500,000 Jews are settled in the West Bank, in addition to over 200,000 in contested east Jerusalem.

Settlements can range in size from a single dwelling to a collection of high-rises, and the occupied territories are also host to a number of unauthorised Israeli outposts.

World

Australian PM booed at Bondi Beach vigil a week after deadly terror attack

Published

7 hours ago

December 21, 2025

admin

Australian PM booed at Bondi Beach vigil a week after deadly terror attack

Australia’s prime minister was met with boos and insults when he arrived at a Bondi Beach vigil for victims of last week’s gun attack.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was booed when his name was announced on the stage set up in front of the crowd – amid anger that the premier hasn’t done more to tackle rising antisemitism in Australia.

In contrast, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns’s name was greeted with cheers and a standing ovation.

The premier was thanked for his leadership and for not missing “a funeral, synagogue service, or an opportunity to be with the Jewish community this week”.

Before going to the vigil, Albanese had announced a review of the country’s police and intelligence agencies a week after the deadly Bondi Beach gun attack.

Albanese said the review, ‌led by a former chief of Australia’s spy agency, would probe whether federal police and intelligence agencies have the “right powers, structures, processes and sharing arrangements in place to keep Australians safe”.

The review comes as Australia marks a day of reflection to honour those killed and injured by two gunmen at Sydney’s Bondi Beach.

Authorities invited Australians to light a candle on Sunday evening, the start of the eighth and final day of the Jewish festival of lights, “as a quiet act of remembrance with family, friends or loved ones” of the victims.

An evening memorial event at Bondi Beach will take place under a heavy police presence, including officers carrying long-arm firearms, police said in a statement.

A minute’s silence was also held at 6.47pm (7.47am UK time).

Earlier this week, around 700 people on paddle boards and surfboards took to the sea at Bondi Beach, forming a huge circle in a show of solidarity.

A minute of reflection

As the heat of Sydney’s summer started to drop away, thousands of people came out to Bondi to support the Jewish community in a day of National Reflection.

They covered the hillside above Bondi. A sea of people standing in solidarity.

There was a minute of silence, though it felt much longer as the usual din of Bondi faded away to stillness.

People hugged each other, sat quietly and there were also tears.

It has been a confronting and deeply emotional week for the Jewish community in Bondi, as they struggle to comprehend the scale of the tragedy that has struck them.

The rest of Australia has struggled too. People are shocked that a mass shooting could happen in this normally peaceful country.

People are angry that the strict gun laws failed to keep firearms out of people with extremist ideology.

Jewish people are angry at the government for failing to curb a rise of antisemitic attacks since the Israel-Gaza war started.

After the memorial I spoke with three of Sydney’s Jewish rabbis from the Emmanuel Synagogue. They said that when it comes to hate speech and antisemitism “words matter”.

But there are few words of comfort to offer a community still so shaken and raw from the massacre of one week ago.

Gaps in the system

The attack ‌exposed gaps in gun-license assessments and information-sharing between agencies that politicians have said they want to plug.

Albanese has announced a nationwide gun buyback, while gun safety experts say the nation’s gun laws, among the world’s toughest, are full of loopholes.

Authorities believe the gunmen were inspired by Islamic State.

“The ISIS-inspired atrocity ‍last Sunday reinforces the rapidly changing security environment in our nation.

“Our security agencies must be in the best position to respond,” Albanese said in a statement, adding that the review would conclude by the end of April.

Albanese has been under pressure from critics who say his centre-left government has not done enough to curb a surge in antisemitism since the start of the war in Gaza.

The prime minister has since vowed to strengthen hate laws in the wake ‌of the attack.

On Saturday, the government of New South Wales, which includes Sydney, committed to introducing a bill to ban the display of symbols and flags of “terrorist organisations”, including those of Islamic State, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Authorities say Islamic State flags were found in the car the attackers took to Bondi.

One of the alleged gunmen, Sajid Akram, 50, was shot dead by police at the scene.

His 24-year-old son Naveed Akram, who was also shot by police and emerged from a coma on Tuesday, has been charged with 59 ‍offences, including murder and terrorism, according to police.

He remains in custody in hospital.

World

Epstein victims express shock and outrage over incomplete release of files

Published

19 hours ago

December 21, 2025

admin

Epstein victims express shock and outrage over incomplete release of files

Several victims of Jeffrey Epstein have told Sky News that the incomplete release of the files relating to the dead paedophile financier have left them feeling shocked, outraged and disappointed.

Thousands of files relating to Epstein, who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, were made public late on Friday – but only a fraction of them have been released so far, with many heavily redacted.

‘Nothing transparent about release’

Marina Lacerda, a Brazilian-born survivor who suffered sexual abuse by Epstein as a teenager, expressed her disappointment over the incomplete release, calling it “a slap in our faces”.

“We were all excited yesterday before the files came out,” she told Sky News presenter Anna Botting.

“And when they did come out, we were just in shock, and we see that there is nothing there that is transparent. So it’s very sad, it’s very disappointing.”

Ms Lacera said she had just turned 14 when she met Epstein before “our relationship, our friendship I should say” ended when she was 17.

“At that point, he had made it very clear to me that I was old, that I was no longer fun for him. So, he booted me out, and I was no longer needed for him,” she said.

Epstein files – latest updates

The Department of Justice (DoJ) suggests that 1,200 victims and their families have effectively been shielded from view in the released documents.

Ms Lacera said: “From what I know, [the number of Epstein victims] is over a thousand, but that’s just what the DoJ can collect or the FBI can collect, but I presume there may be more than that.”

‘No way it’s not a cover-up’

Ashley Rubright met the late sex offender when she was just 15 in Palm Beach and was subject to abuse over several years.

Asked about her dissatisfaction with yesterday’s government release and if there was a sense of a cover-up operation, she noted that there had been knowledge of Epstein’s crimes “for so, so long”.

“There’s no way that there’s not a cover-up – what it is, I don’t know,” she told Sky News’ US correspondent James Matthews.

“I just hope that nobody’s allowed to fly under the radar with their involvement.”

Regarding the extent of the redactions, she said: “I’m so not shocked, but let down. Disappointed.

“Seeing […] completely redacted pages, there’s no way that that’s just to protect the victims’ identities, and there better be a good reason. I just don’t know if we’ll ever know what that is.

“We’ve been left behind since day one. That’s why I think we’re all fighting so loud now, because we’re tired of it.”

‘He wanted to man-handle me’

Another survivor, Alicia Arden, told Sky News that she met Epstein in a California hotel room in 1997 for an audition, when she was a 25-year-old model and actress.

“He let me in and he started looking over my portfolio, which is customary to do in a talent audition, and then he insinuated, ‘oh, you should come closer to me and let me see your body’,” she said.

Epstein then started “taking off my top and my pants and touching my rear end and my breasts”.

“He goes, ‘let me come over here and spin for me and let me man-handle you. Let me man-handle you.’ And I got very nervous and started to cry. I said, ‘I have to go, Jeffrey. I don’t really think this is gonna work out’,” Ms Arden said.

“He got a phone call and I was crying in front of him. And he said, ‘I have this beautiful girl in front of me and she’s very upset’. I said ‘I’m gonna leave’ and he offered me $100 and I said ‘I’m not a prostitute’.”

She said she went to the Santa Monica Police Department to file a report.

“That was as difficult, and I’m like shaking telling you, but as difficult as being in the hotel room with him because they weren’t supportive at all about it,” she said. Her redacted report was included in previous files.

‘Epstein was a monster’

Asked what she thought about Epstein now, she said: “He’s a monster […] and just horrible. I mean, I’m trembling thinking about him and talking about him.

“If I could do anything, I’m happy I got the police report filed. If they would have pursued him and maybe gone over the hotel [where he was] essentially living, then I could have maybe saved the girls. I’ve always thought that.”

Ms Arden does not believe she has seen justice as one of Epstein’s victims.

“I want to see all of the files come out. I want all of the men in there or women that were trafficking these girls, and they shouldn’t be able to walk around free and not pay for if they did something,” she said.

“They should be actually arrested if they’re in the files and it’s proven that they did horrible things to these girls, and they should lose their jobs, their lives, their homes, their money, and pay for what they did, and it was all supposed to come out, and it hasn’t.”

‘I feel redeemed’ by file release

Maria Farmer, who made a complaint to the Miami FBI in 1996 in which she alleged that Epstein stole and sold photos she had taken of her 12- and 16-year-old sisters, expressed gratitude for the release of the files.

“This is amazing. Thank you for believing me. I feel redeemed. This is one of the best days of my life,” she said in a statement through her lawyers.

“I’m crying for two reasons. I want everyone to know that I am shedding tears of joy for myself, but also tears of sorrow for all the other victims that the FBI failed.”

A positive-leaning reaction also came from Dani Bensky, who said she was sexually abused by Epstein when she was 17 years old.

She told Sky News’ US partner network NBC News: “There is part of me that feels a bit validated at this moment, because I think so many of us have been saying, ‘No, this is real, like, we’re not a hoax’.

“There’s so much information, and yet not as much as we may have wanted to see.”

‘It is not over’

Lawyer Gloria Allred, who has represented several Epstein victims, told Sky News about the partial release on Friday: “It’s very disappointing that all of the files were not released yesterday as required and, in fact, mandated by law.

“The law didn’t say they could do this over a period of time, it didn’t say that weeks could go by.”

Deputy attorney general Mr Blanche said additional file disclosures can be expected by the end of the year.

“But that’s not what the law says. So clearly, the law has been violated. And it’s the Department of Justice letting down the survivors once again,” Ms Allred said.

The lawyer labelled the incomplete release of the files a “distraction”, adding: “This is not over, and it won’t be over until we get the truth and transparency for the survivors.”

‘Only redactions required by law’

The tranche of material was released just hours before a legal deadline in the US following the passing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act – and at the same time as a US strike targeting Islamic State fighters in Syria.

The US deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, said the justice department was continuing to review the remaining files and was withholding some documents under exemptions meant to protect the victims.

But Sky News’ James Matthews said the significance of the files “is undermined by the lack of context”, while some Democrats and Republicans criticised the partial release as failing to “comply with law”.

Meanwhile, the justice department has defended the redactions made in the released files.

“The only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law – full stop. Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim,” it quoted deputy attorney general Mr Blanche in a post on X.

The Trump administration has claimed to be the most transparent in history.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

In a statement, the White House claimed the release also demonstrated its commitment to justice for Epstein’s victims, criticising previous Democratic administrations for not doing the same.

But that statement ignored that the disclosures only happened because Congress forced the administration’s hand with a bill demanding the release, after Trump officials declared earlier this year that no more Epstein files would be made public.