Connect with us
...

Politics

Covid messages leak a massive betrayal

Published

on

Ex-Health Secretary Matt Hancock has accused a journalist of a “massive betrayal and breach of trust” after she leaked texts he sent during Covid.

Isabel Oakeshott defended releasing WhatsApps she obtained when working on Mr Hancock’s book, arguing it was in the “overwhelming national interest”.

However, Mr Hancock said the messages were released in a “biased account to suit an anti-lockdown agenda”.

He also denied her claim he had sent her a “menacing” message over the leak.

The Telegraph has been handed more than 100,000 WhatsApp messages linked to Mr Hancock’s time as health secretary at the height of the pandemic. It began publishing the texts earlier this week.

Watch: Isabel Oakeshott reveals why she leaked the messages

In a statement released on Thursday morning Mr Hancock said: “When I heard confused rumours of a publication late on Tuesday night, I called and messaged Isabel to ask her if she had ‘any clues’ about it, and got no response.

“When I then saw what she’d done, I messaged to say it was ‘a big mistake’. Nothing more.”

Mr Hancock argued the public inquiry into the pandemic was the right place for analysis of what went on – saying he would reply to the “substance” of allegations at the inquiry.

He apologised to those whose messages had been published by the Daily Telegraph, saying: “I am also sorry for the impact on the very many people – political colleagues, civil servants and friends – who worked hard with me to get through the pandemic and save lives.”

“Isabel and I had worked closely together for more than a year on my book, based on legal confidentiality and a process approved by the Cabinet Office. Isabel repeatedly reiterated the importance of trust throughout, and then broke that trust.”

The WhatsApp leaks

A collection of more than 100,000 messages sent between former Health Secretary Matt Hancock and other ministers and officials at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic have been obtained by the Telegraph. Here are our stories on the leaks:

The text messages were passed to the newspaper by Ms Oakeshott, TalkTV’s international editor, who has been critical of lockdowns. She was given copies of the texts while helping Mr Hancock write his book, Pandemic Diaries.

The BBC has not seen or independently verified the WhatsApp messages nor the context in which they were sent.

Ms Oakeshott has strongly defended her decision to release the messages saying she was someone “acting in the overwhelming national interest”. She has not revealed how much she has been paid by the Telegraph.

“Anyone who thinks I did this for money must be utterly insane,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme.

“This is about the millions of people, every one of us in this country, that were adversely affected by the catastrophic decision to lockdown the country repeatedly on the flimsiest of evidence, often for the political reasons.

“I wanted to get to the truth of it,” she said.

Asked when she told Mr Hancock she would share the messages, she replied: “I didn’t tell him.”

“Not one journalist worth their salt would sit on a cache of information in such an important matter, such a historic matter and cover that up,” she said.

Pressed on the claim that Mr Hancock sent her a menacing message following the leaks, Ms Oakeshott said: “I’m saying that he sent me a message at 01.20 in the morning. It wasn’t a pleasant message.”

Ms Oakeshott had initially told broadcasters she had signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Mr Hancock during the writing of her book.

However, she later told the BBC’s political editor Chris Mason that there was not an NDA but rather a “really standard terms of agreement between us”.

Responding to Mr Hancock’s strong criticism, Ms Oakeshott said: “This isn’t about embarrassing individuals or making individual politicians look bad.

“It’s so much bigger than that, it is about the entire country. And if we’re going to talk about betrayal, then the way I see it is the betrayal of every one of us, who were let down by the response to the pandemic.”

Asked if she was worried other politicians would stop trusting her with information, she said “No, because I’m really good at what I do. I do stories in the public interest, and I make judgments.”

What are non-disclosure agreements?

An NDA is a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material that they need or want to share with each other, but also want to restrict access to – similar to doctor-patient confidentiality or lawyer-client privilege.

Sometimes known as “gagging orders”, “hush agreements” or “confidentiality clauses”, NDAs typically prevent people making trade secrets or other specified information public.

They can also apply to allegations of misbehaviour in the workplace after a settlement has been agreed, or anything likely to damage an organisation’s reputation.

But like any other contract, they can not be enforced if the specified activities are illegal.

If someone breaches an NDA, they break a contract, leaving them open to being sued.

But there is a public interest defence – the 1998 Public Interest Disclosure Act protects whistleblowers.

The publication of the messages has sent shockwaves through the political establishment as the public inquiry into the pandemic picks up pace.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, Rishi Sunak defended the public inquiry as the “right way” to scrutinise the handling of the pandemic and urged people not to focus on “piecemeal bits of information”.

PMQs: Rishi Sunak quizzed on claims of leaked Hancock messages by Sir Keir Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer called for Mr Sunak to ensure the inquiry had all the support it needed “to report by the end of this year”.

Mr Hancock has already given a partial account of his time as health secretary, with the help of Ms Oakeshott, in his book, Pandemic Diaries.

The book was widely viewed as an attempt by Mr Hancock to rehabilitate his reputation after he resigned as health secretary over breaching social distancing guidance by kissing a colleague.

Last year, Mr Hancock said he would not be standing as an MP at the next general election, after receiving criticism for joining the reality TV show I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!

Reports /TrainViral/

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Gething downfall delivers Starmer 1st headache

Published

on

By

Just when you’d have been forgiven for thinking politics might quieten down a bit…

The Welsh Labour government was for so long a case study in how the party could operate in power during its long years of opposition at Westminster.

And yet here we are less than a fortnight into a UK Labour government, and the Welsh Labour government is imploding.

So much for all that talk about bringing stability back to politics.

Last week Vaughan Gething was sharing smiles here not just with the new prime minister but the King too.

Now, he’s a goner, delivering Sir Keir Starmer a headache rather than a handshake.

When I was here in March covering Mr Gething’s victory, the seeds of his political demise were germinating before our eyes.

The donations row had already sprouted and his defeated opponent, Jeremy Miles, legged it from the venue without so much as any warm words about the victor on camera.

It was another sign of the cultivating anger, the political knotweed that would soon flourish and ensnare Vaughan Gething.

Along came the row about alleged leaking, a sacking, a confidence vote — and a first minister whose tenure up until today at least amounts to 2.4 times that of Liz Truss. Ouch.

Westminster has generated its fair share of turbulence in the last decade.

But it is far from unique as a source of turbulence in UK politics.

In February, Michelle O’Neill became first minister of Northern Ireland with Emma Little-Pengelly her deputy, after a long period without devolved government at Stormont.

In March, we had a new first minister of Wales, when Mark Drakeford stood down and Vaughan Gething took the job.

In April we had the resignation of the first minister of Scotland Humza Yousaf.

He was replaced the following month by John Swinney. June was the quiet month then. Just the small matter of a general election campaign.

And here we are in July, and Mr Gething is resigning.

So will begin another leadership race, a new government in Wales, a new first minister and a new team of senior Welsh ministers.

There will also be more arguments about Welsh Labour – its direction, its priorities, its capacity to govern effectively and its relationship with the UK party.

If you’re watching this in Downing Street, it’s the last thing you need.

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Politics

Shoplifting crackdown expected to be unveiled

Published

on

By

A crackdown on shoplifting is expected to be announced in the King’s Speech on Wednesday.

The government is due to unveil a new crime bill to target people who steal goods worth less than £200.

The policy would be a reversal of 2014 legislation that meant “low-value” thefts worth under £200 were subject to less serious punishment.

The government is also expected to introduce a specific offence of assaulting a shop worker to its legislative agenda.

It will not be clear until legislation passes through Parliament what the punishments for any new or strengthened offences would be.

Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that last year was the worst on record for shoplifting in England and Wales.

Police recorded over 430,000 offences in those nations in 2023 – though retailers say underreporting means these figures are likely to represent only a fraction of the true number of incidents.

Michelle Whitehead, who works at a convenience store in Wolverhampton, said her shop had been “hit every day” by thieves.

People were stealing “absolutely anything” including “tins of spam, tins of corned beef, all the fresh meat”, Ms Whitehead told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme.

“They’re just coming in, getting their whole arm and sweeping the lot off the shelves,” she said. “The shelves were always empty.”

She said she believed “organised” criminal gangs, rather than individuals struggling with the cost of living, were behind the thefts in her shop.

The crackdown on “low-value” shoplifting “will help a lot of little shops,” Ms Whitehead said.

While retailers and shop workers have welcomed the anticipated proposals, a civil liberties group has raised concerns about criminalising people struggling to make ends meet and overburdening the prison system.

The new legal measures are expected to be announced as part of the King’s Speech on Wednesday, a key piece of the State Opening of Parliament that allows the government to outline its priorities over the coming months.

Before the general election, the Labour Party pledged to reverse what it described as the “shoplifter’s charter” – a piece of 2014 legislation that reduced the criminal punishment for “low-value shoplifting”.

Tom Holder, spokesperson for the British Retail Consortium (BRC), told BBC News the impact of the 2014 legislation has been to “deprioritise it in the eyes of police”.

“I think police would be less likely to turn up to what they see as low-level theft,” he said.

Shoplifting cost retailers £1.8 billion in the last year, which could impact prices, according to the BRC.

“Shoplifting harms everyone in that sense – those costs eventually get made up somewhere, whether it’s prices going up or other prices that can’t come down,” Mr Holder said.

Co-op campaigns and public affairs director Paul Gerrard said the supermarket chain had also recorded rising theft and violence against shop workers.

“There’s always been people who will steal to make ends meet. That’s not what is behind the rise we’ve seen,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday. “What’s behind that rise is individuals and gangs targeting large volumes of stock in stores for resale in illicit venues like pubs, clubs, markets, and out the back of cars.”

But Jodie Beck, policy and campaigns officer at civil liberties organisation Liberty, had concerns about the expected proposals, saying there is “already a wide range of powers” the police can use to tackle shoplifting and anti-social behaviour levelled at retail staff.

Ms Beck said the “£200 threshold” would not just target criminal gangs but also “people who are pushed into the desperate situation of not paying for things” because they cannot afford to make ends meet.

She urged the government to avoid focusing on “criminal justice and policing solutions instead of doing the thoughtful work of looking at the root causes of crime, which we believe are related to poverty and inequality”.

Ms Beck also argued the additional legislation could serve to worsen the UK’s “enormous court backlog” and its “bursting prison system”.

Last week, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans to release thousands of prisoners early to ease overcrowding in the country’s prisons.

A spokesperson for Downing Street said the government would not comment on the King’s Speech until it has been delivered by the monarch.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has been approached for comment.

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Politics

Government launches ‘root and branch’ review

Published

on

By

Defence Secretary John Healey hailed the government’s defence review as the “first of its kind” and said it will “take a fresh look at the challenges we face”.

Mr Healey noted the “increasing instability and uncertainty” around the world, including the conflict in the Middle East and war in Ukraine, and said “threats are growing”.

The strategic defence review will consider the current state of the armed forces, the threats the UK faces and the capabilities needed to address them.

Sir Keir Starmer has previously said the review will set out a “roadmap” to the goal of spending 2.5% of national income on defence – a target he has made a “cast iron” commitment to but is yet to put a timeline on.

On Monday, the prime minister said the “root and branch review” of the armed forces would help prepare the UK for “a more dangerous and volatile world”.

The review will invite submissions from the military, veterans, MPs, the defence industry, the public, academics and the UK’s allies until the end of September and aims to deliver its findings in the first half of 2025.

“I promised the British people I would deliver the change needed to take our country forward, and I promised action not words,” Sir Keir said.

“That’s why one of my first acts since taking office is to launch our strategic defence review.

“We will make sure our hollowed out armed forces are bolstered and respected, that defence spending is responsibly increased, and that our country has the capabilities needed to ensure the UK’s resilience for the long term.”

The review will be overseen by Defence Secretary John Healey and headed by former Nato Secretary General Lord Robertson along with former US presidential advisor Fiona Hill and former Joint Force Commander Gen Sir Richard Barrons.

The group will have their work cut out.

The global security threats facing the UK and its Western allies are more serious and more complex than at any time since the end of the Cold War in 1990.

They also coincide with what many commentators have said is a catastrophic running down of the UK’s armed forces to the point where the country is arguably no longer considered to be a Tier One military force.

In terms of the number of troops in its regular forces, the British Army is now at its smallest size since the time of the Napoleonic Wars two centuries ago.

Recruitment is failing to match retention, with many soldiers and officers complaining about neglected and substandard accommodation.

The Royal Navy, which has spent vast sums on its two centrepiece aircraft carriers, is in need of many more surface ships to fulfil its tasks around the globe.

Its ageing fleet of nuclear-armed Vanguard submarines, the cornerstone of the UK’s strategic defence and known as the Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD), is overdue for replacement by four Dreadnought class submarines and costs are mounting.

Commenting on the review, Mr Healey said: “Hollowed-out armed forces, procurement waste and neglected morale cannot continue.”

Too many UK commitments?

The defence and security threats facing the UK, Nato and its allies further afield are multiple.

They include a war raging on Europe’s eastern flank in Ukraine against Russia’s full-scale invasion. The UK, along with the EU and Nato, has opted to help defend Ukraine with multi-billion pound packages of weapons and aid, stopping short of committing combat troops.

The policy behind this is not entirely altruistic. European governments, especially those closest to Russia like Poland and the Baltic states, fear that if President Putin wins the war in Ukraine it will not be long before he rebuilds his army and invades them next.

Some of those countries are already busy beefing up their own defence spending closer to 3% or even 4% of GDP.

The challenge for Nato has been how to provide Ukraine with as much weaponry as it can, without provoking Russia into retaliating against a Nato state and risk triggering a third world war.

The Royal Navy has been in action recently in the Red Sea, where it has been operating alongside the US Navy in fending off attacks on shipping by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

But the UK has also made naval commitments further afield in the South China Sea with the Aukus pact, comprising of Australia, UK and the US, aimed at containing Chinese expansion in the region.

Critics have questioned whether a financially-constrained UK can afford to make commitments like this on the other side of the world.

Closer to home in Europe, there is a growing threat from so-called “hybrid warfare” attacks, suspected of coming from Russia.

These are anonymous, unattributable attacks on undersea pipelines and telecoms cables on which Western nations depend.

As tensions increase with Moscow there are fears such actions will only increase and the UK cannot possibly hope to guard all of its coastline all of the time.

But while those nervous Nato partners living close to Russia’s borders are busy beefing up their defence spending closer to 3 or even 4% of GDP, the UK has so far declined to put a timetable on when it will raise its own defence spending to just 2.5%.

Opposition figures have criticised the government for refusing to say when defence spending will be increased.

Before his election defeat, former prime minister Rishi Sunak committed to reaching 2.5% by 2030.

Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge previously said: “In a world that is more volatile and dangerous than at any time since the Cold War, Keir Starmer’s Labour government had a clear choice to match the Conservatives’ fully funded pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030.

“By failing to do so, they’ve created huge uncertainty for our armed forces, at the worst possible time.”

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 TechDaja News.