Adam Boulton: Politicians are drawn to WhatsApp – it may stop us ever knowing whole truth
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Leaked WhatsApp messages from Matt Hancock
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.
Latest:
Government accused of COVID ‘cover-up’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Government ‘carefully considering next steps’
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 to 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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Johnson refutes ‘COVID rule breaches’
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.
Matt Hancock and Isabel Oakeshott. Pic: Parsons Media
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What is in the online safety bill?
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.
Premier League match tickets at Chelsea have been selling for more than twice the price of a season ticket on an American exchange website with a familiar director and investor to supporters – club chairman Todd Boehly.
Amid growing fan fury, Sky News was able to access the Vivid Seats platform on different devices last week from London – and saw tickets for the visit of Liverpool on 4 May, priced by Chelsea at a maximum of £80, being sold for between £537 and £2,666.
Some tickets were listed as being sold by traders.
Chairman of Chelsea Todd Boehly. Pic: Reuters
Chelsea’s official website appeared to show no availability for this premium fixture, with the Blues battling for Champions League qualification and Liverpool potentially celebrating being crowned Premier League winners.
The most expensive Stamford Bridge season ticket for this campaign was £1,015.
Vivid is listed by the Premier League among “unauthorised ticket websites” with a message: “We would urge fans to exercise extreme caution when dealing with these websites.”
Vivid insisted it adheres to laws and regulations in Britain
The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust has written to the Premier League to ask that Vivid – given its ties with a club’s shareholder – “ceases facilitating the sale of tickets for significantly above face value”.
Mr Boehly – part of the consortium that replaced Roman Abramovich as owner in 2022 – has not addressed accusations of a “conflict of interest” or claims he is undermining efforts to combat ticket touting.
There are anti-touting warnings on signs in the streets approaching the stadium.
Sky News found some tickets for more than £2,000 on Vivid Seats
An official Chelsea Ticket Exchange allows season ticket holders to sell their tickets “at the pro-rata price of season tickets” to a club member “in a safe, secure environment”.
While Chelsea’s website says to only buy tickets in the UK from official sellers, it adds: “Many of the websites that advertise and sell tickets online are not within the jurisdiction of UK law.
“This means, while we report these sites when we see Chelsea tickets on them, there is little we can do to shut down the sites.”
Sign at Stamford Bridge warning against ticket touting
On Vivid, we did see warnings telling visiting users not to buy seats in the home sections and a pop-up eventually appeared after browsing the availability, saying: “Tickets for the EPL matches are not currently available for purchase in your location.”
No attempt was made by us to buy tickets. But should we have been able to see the listings at all?
Sky News first asked for comment from Vivid last Monday and continued to see ticket listings with variable prices in pounds during the week. It took until Friday night for any form of response.
“Vivid Seats respectfully adheres to the laws that are in place in the United Kingdom and is not in violation of any regulations around EPL tickets,” the email read in part. “As such, Vivid Seats’ policy restricts the sale and marketing of EPL tickets in the United Kingdom.”
Pic: Reuters
When Sky News checked the website again on Saturday the listings for Premier League matches were no longer visible as they are from outside of Britain.
Asked if they were no longer visible after our inquiries, Vivid’s official replied: “The conclusions that you are drawing are factually incorrect.
“We understand that people will try to find ways to circumvent technology and as such, we have validation protocols in place in order to restrict the sale and marketing of EPL tickets in the United Kingdom.”
Again, Vivid insisted it adheres to laws and regulations in Britain.
But the same official did not respond to an email detailing how we were able to view the tickets listings from London on separate days, without using VPN software that can make your browser seem as if it’s accessing the internet from another country.
Chelsea’s match against Ipswich at Stamford Bridge. Pic: Reuters
‘It’s the only way I was going to get here’
Ticket exchange websites can be the only way for some fans overseas to come to matches.
When Ipswich played at Stamford Bridge on 13 April, Baz Gillespie was able to watch after 20 years living in Cyprus by paying a vastly-inflated £300 for two tickets on a website other than Vivid.
“The only way I was going to get here was that way,” he said, remembering the days he could just queue up and pay a fiver for a ticket.
The same match was Martin van Dijk’s first-ever game at the Bridge, having come from the Netherlands after paying €150 (£128) on another exchange website after initially trying through Vivid.
“If there’s no other option, and you want to visit, it’s the only way, but I’d rather get it through like the normal way,” he said.
Chelsea fan Martin van Dijk paid €150 for a ticket on a resale website
‘An absolute disgrace’
It is the “normal way” that so many supporters want to protect and are aghast at Mr Boehly’s links to Vivid, predating his purchase of a stake in Chelsea.
“It’s an absolute disgrace,” supporter Ben Grey said. “He shouldn’t be involved in Chelsea and a reselling website. It’s unethical from a basic perspective.
“The club are coming out with communication saying that they’re against ticket reselling and our semi-majority shareholder [has a website] reselling tickets to our games.”
Asked what the Premier League should do, he replied: “I’m a massive Chelsea fan, I don’t want Chelsea to be hit hard by anything.
“But the fact of the matter is they need to sort that out and if they’re allowing there to be an owner of a club who’s reselling tickets, it’s a disgrace.”
Fan Ben Grey said Mr Boehy shouldn’t be involved in Chelsea and a reselling website
‘Not a very good look’
Another fan, Rich Still, called it “21st century greed”.
The issue is resonating with young children.
Rhys Edwards, watching with his father, said: “It doesn’t look too good on Chelsea and their owners to be fair.
“Saying that [the website] is not authorised by the league they’re playing in isn’t a very good look.”
Officials with Chelsea, the Premier League and Mr Boehly declined to comment.
The Vivid statement to Sky News stressed: “It is important to note that Vivid Seats does not set the base price for tickets sold on its marketplace or receive any revenue from that base price; only the seller sets and receives the base ticket price.”
Labour MP Rupa Huq has proposed a law change to improve pricing transparency
‘It’s like the Wild West’
Vivid highlighted to Sky News its “long-standing partnership”, including being a backer of a 2023 summer tour of the United States.
Chelsea’s website featured a quote saying: “We are pleased to join with a company committed to becoming the ultimate partner for connecting fans to the live events, teams and artists they love.”
The government has launched a consultation to prevent people from being ripped off in Britain by the resale of tickets.
Read more:
Chelsea star’s £160,000 car seized
UK set to host 2035 Women’s World Cup
The limit could range from the cost of the original ticket to a 30% uplift to stop the public being “fleeced” by professional touts.
Labour MP for Ealing Central and Acton, Rupa Huq, has separately proposed a change to the law to improve pricing transparency on secondary ticketing sites.
“It’s an unregulated market,” she told Sky News. “It’s like the Wild West. It needs getting back into control.”
A murder investigation is under way after a woman was stabbed to death in north London.
Police were called to an address in Ayley Croft, Enfield, around 7pm on Saturday following reports of a stabbing.
Emergency workers treated a 45-year-old woman but she died at the scene, the Metropolitan Police said.
The victim’s next of kin has been informed and is being supported by specialist officers.
Officers at the scene in Enfield
No one has been arrested in connection with her death.
Police have been seen focusing on Gainsborough House, a high-rise block on the estate.
An officer was spotted at the window on the fifth floor. Patrols have also been seen outside.
An officer in Gainsborough House
Detective Chief Inspector Neil John said: “Our thoughts are with the victim’s family at this difficult time.
“As our investigation continues, there will be an increased police presence in the area, and a crime scene remains in place.
“We understand this will be very distressing to the local community and anyone who has concerns can speak to local officers.”
Read more from Sky News:
Husband describes ‘horror’ as wife fatally hit by van
Prince Andrew joins King and Queen at Easter service
Police are appealing for dashcam footage from anyone who was driving through Ayley Croft between 6.30pm and 7.30pm on Saturday.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway