Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[Nearholmer]

10 hours ago, John M Upton said:

I want to know how CCTV footage from a camera inside a secure Government building came to be leaked to the press. 

I guess we’d all be interested to know how and why.

 

The initial mental image is of a bored security guard, flicking through camera views in real time, stumbling upon something interesting, then exploiting it for personal gain (deeply illegal irrespective of where the cctv system is).

 

But, it could be a lot more interesting than that, going right up to the possibilities of spooks, either our own or somebody else’s, being involved. It is even conceivable that the image is a deep fake, created on the basis that somebody knew hanky panky was going on, but couldn’t get an image, so made one.

 

Then there is the question of timing of the leak/publication. Why now? Could be that the newspaper has had the image for ages, and has been trying to get a watertight legal position as to how it won’t be prosecuted before publishing, but there could equally be other things going on. One or two prominent figures do really seem to loath Mr H, and be prepared to lay into him big-time in public, for instance.

 

Public opinion is unquestionably being manipulated, but by whom, and for what end?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Neil]

No crowd of angry pitchfork wielding citizens so more like public opinion than mob rule I feel. In the end isn't it public opinion which drives democracy? 

[Nearholmer]

Yes, which is why people try to manipulate it, which somebody unquestionably is doing here.

 

The motive might simply be profit, as in promoting a newspaper brand, but it might be a lot shadier than that. It might even, at a long stretch of the imagination, be a case of a genuinely outraged individual or group exposing a hypocrite.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Bernard Lamb]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I guess we’d all be interested to know how and why.

 

The initial mental image is of a bored security guard, flicking through camera views in real time, stumbling upon something interesting, then exploiting it for personal gain (deeply illegal irrespective of where the cctv system is).

 

But, it could be a lot more interesting than that, going right up to the possibilities of spooks, either our own or somebody else’s, being involved. It is even conceivable that the image is a deep fake, created on the basis that somebody new hanky lanky was going on, but couldn’t get an image, so made one.

 

Then there is the question of timing of the leak/publication. Why now? Could be that the newspaper has had the image for ages, and has been trying to get a watertight legal position as to how it won’t be prosecuted before publishing, but there could equally be other things going on. One or two prominent figures do really seem to loath Mr H, and be prepared to lay into him big-time in public, for instance.

 

Public opinion is unquestionably being manipulated, but by whom, and for what end?

 

 

But when does that become whistle blowing on a  suspected breach of the rules and acting in the public interest?

It cuts both ways.

Bernard

[beast66606]

4 minutes ago, Neil said:

No crowd of angry pitchfork wielding citizens so more like public opinion than mob rule I feel. In the end isn't it public opinion which drives democracy? 

 

Whats the difference ? - the mob wielding pitchforks are the public and their opinion would be valid / democratic., only the technique differs.

 

[Nearholmer]

Even if it is ‘whistle blowing’, at the most boringly procedural level it’s illegal. I only pointed that out because John Upton cited the official secrets act, which is completely unnecessary, and probably doesn’t apply. All cctv is governed by tight laws with a view to preventing invasion of privacy.

 

A ‘whistle blower’ might decide to run the risk of prosecution in the wider interest, and a court might be lenient with them if it believes in their motivation, but at the boring level, they would have broken the law.

[MJI]

10 hours ago, John M Upton said:

I want to know how CCTV footage from a camera inside a secure Government building came to be leaked to the press.   Someone could be getting a knock on the door from Special Branch followed by a rather uncomfortable conversation about the Official Secrets Act, not to mention GDPR, Data Protection, etc, etc.

 

 

 

Breaking his own rules, classed as whistle blowing

[boxbrownie]

I am sure I heard on R4 some insider had stated that there are no security cameras in the Ministers offices, only in the corridors and exit entrances, if that’s true it opens an even bigger issue than MH squeezing a bottom.

 

And the images I have seen of the incident look very much poorer than I’d expect a governmental building security camera to be giving.

 

It would be eventually nice to know the real source.

[Nearholmer]

1 minute ago, boxbrownie said:

look very much poorer than I’d expect a governmental building security camera to be giving.

Even if they are from legit cctv of good quality, they might have been photographed from a screen, using a phone cam, rather than be downloads. Much harder to trace that way.

[woodenhead]

It's quite simple, if he hadn't employed somone he fancied, if he had not been paying that woman tax payers money, if he hadn't been flaunting the relationship in front of civil servants and suchlike then there would not have been a video, he would still be SoS and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  My understanding is that it is believed it is an actual camera in his office, there are pictures of it.

 

It's more than just an affair, he set the rules which he lambasted others for breaking and then broke them himself.

 

My mother in law stayed indoors for 12 months because Matt Hancock told her to, she couldn't see her grandchildren, had to depend on me to shop for her.  But the rules only applied to her, not him, he could do what he wanted and did.

 

He also put his manhood before the country, he was carrying on with someone, orchestrating an affair whilst he was meant to be saving lives.

 

However, you put this and I am not bringing other alleged incidents by him into this, or the fact he is being investigated for how contracts were awarded elsewhere into the argument, it's plain and simply because he was the biggest hypocrite of them all.

 

I am in agreement that the person who handed over the imagery may be in trouble, but had they simply informed Government, might this whole thing have been covered up, his boss has form so why would you expect him to sack someone else for doing the same thing.

[boxbrownie]

25 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Even if they are from legit cctv of good quality, they might have been photographed from a screen, using a phone cam, rather than be downloads. Much harder to trace that way.

Very possible.

[Nearholmer]

Mischievous thought: what if the image that has been released is only the first of several, recording an episode that gets progressively more impassioned?

 

”Go now, or the next clip gets released?”

 

As I say, just a mischievous thought.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Nearholmer

[boxbrownie]

16 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It's quite simple, if he hadn't employed somone he fancied, if he had not been paying that woman tax payers money, if he hadn't been flaunting the relationship in front of civil servants and suchlike then there would not have been a video, he would still be SoS and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  My understanding is that it is believed it is an actual camera in his office, there are pictures of it.

 

It's more than just an affair, he set the rules which he lambasted others for breaking and then broke them himself.

 

My mother in law stayed indoors for 12 months because Matt Hancock told her to, she couldn't see her grandchildren, had to depend on me to shop for her.  But the rules only applied to her, not him, he could do what he wanted and did.

 

He also put his manhood before the country, he was carrying on with someone, orchestrating an affair whilst he was meant to be saving lives.

 

However, you put this and I am not bringing other alleged incidents by him into this, or the fact he is being investigated for how contracts were awarded elsewhere into the argument, it's plain and simply because he was the biggest hypocrite of them all.

 

I am in agreement that the person who handed over the imagery may be in trouble, but had they simply informed Government, might this whole thing have been covered up, his boss has form so why would you expect him to sack someone else for doing the same thing.

Indeed, but being in the profession I was more interested in the technical details of the 5hitty pictures than anything else, I’ll leave that to others to mull over.

[Hobby]

Bear in mind they are "alleged" incidents and nothing has yet been proven regarding the contracts and all we have is the photo. As far as I was aware the justice system in the uk assumes innocence until proven guilty... But that seems to have been forgotten by the mob. 

 

As an aside I wasn't thinking about pitchforks when I used hthe word mob in my earlier post, but it's modern replacement, social media. 

 

(Reply to Woodenhead) 

[boxbrownie]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Mischievous thought: what if the image that has been released is only the first of several, recording an episode that gets progressively more impassioned?

 

”Go now, or the next clip gets released?”

 

As I say, just a mischievous thought.

 

 

I thought there was a video released yesterday which that still was from?

[woodenhead]

8 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Bear in mind they are "alleged" incidents and nothing has yet been proven regarding the contracts and all we have is the photo. As far as I was aware the justice system in the uk assumes innocence until proven guilty... But that seems to have been forgotten by the mob. 

 

As an aside I wasn't thinking about pitchforks when I used hthe word mob in my earlier post, but it's modern replacement, social media. 

 

(Reply to Woodenhead) 

He hasn't denied the affair, his boss hasn't denied the relationship, his wife hasn't come out and said he didn't do it and neither has her husband.

 

The guy is guilty, opinion polls within the party show he had no support because of what he had done, the man was/is a complete hypocrit and he had to go.  If lockdown has to be extended on the 19th July, do you think anyone would listen to Hancock after this?

 

 

[Hobby]

Look at the history of politics and how many people got away with the "crime" of having an affair, since when has it been a sackable offence.

 

As someone else said we don't know if they were actually allowed to be close, as in a work bubble.

 

All I see is mob rule, which I find abhorrent. They (you?) were out to get him, they've won, so who's next on the list? 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Hobby

[Oldddudders]

I have lifted this from the BBC website, a Laura Kuenssberg report.

 

"One senior Tory told me it "beggared belief" that the man who had essentially banned casual relationships for a year was caught out having disobeyed the guidance himself, but still tried to maintain his position. Another insider said "everyone hates hypocrisy".

 

So this isn't just an Anti-Government mob, but his own party.

[Nearholmer]

My working assumption is that he decided to resign when presented with incontrovertible evidence that the party faithful were agin him by their whips.

[Mark Saunders]

11 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

 

So this isn't just an Anti-Government mob, but his own party. 
 

Sounds more like the pack has turned against him!

 

As long as you have the support of the Alpha dogs you survive!

[alastairq]

3 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

As long as you have the support of the Alpha dogs you survive!

 'Twas always thus?

 

I was reminded of the issue of Edwina Curry, and J Major?

 

Or, Blunkett & the hareem?

[Reorte]

27 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Look at the history of politics and how many people got away with the "crime" of having an affair, since when has it been a sackable offence.

 

As someone else said we don't know if they were actually allowed to be close, as in a work bubble.

 

All I see is mob rule, which I find abhorrent. They (you?) were out to get him, they've won, so who's next on the list? 

 

Politicians do end up the victims of mob rule too often, the calls of "resign!" any time one isn't squeaky clean are rather excessive and tiresome, and there's the disturbing idea of just how the images got out to consider. Certainly having an affair is no-one's business other than his and his family's. Employing people you know might be against the rules but it doesn't bother me much as long as the person can do the job.  When it comes to the hug that would be a slap on the wrist as far as I'm concerned if the person involved wasn't the one standing up every day telling us that we shouldn't do that, unless they were in a bubble. Whilst the "resign" theme gets tiresome for a minister to contradict something so prominent really does cross the line. Where I agree with you is that it's a serious problem how such things can be used to manipulate the situation though - how to square that circle?

 

Is / was there such a thing as a "work bubble"? I've worked in the office throughout most of this and they've tried to keep people apart for as much as possible; yes, sometimes you need to sit near someone to discuss something or have a meeting but it's really a matter of only when you have to and definitely not "you're all working together, carry on as normal."

[rocor]

59 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Mischievous thought: what if the image that has been released is only the first of several, recording an episode that gets progressively more impassioned?

 

”Go now, or the next clip gets released?”

 

As I say, just a mischievous thought.

 

 

 

From here onwards, to watch the rest of the video, is pay to view only.

[Andy Hayter]

46 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Look at the history of politics and how many people got away with the "crime" of having an affair, since when has it been a sackable offence.

 

As someone else said we don't know if they were actually allowed to be close, as in a work bubble.

 

All I see is mob rule, which I find abhorrent. They (you?) were out to get him, they've won, so who's next on the list? 

 

Wasn't Hancock one of the strongest critics when Prof. Ferguson resigned from SAGE for doing the same thing last year?

 

Do unto others as..................

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, which is why people try to manipulate it, which somebody unquestionably is doing here.

 

The motive might simply be profit, as in promoting a newspaper brand, but it might be a lot shadier than that. It might even, at a long stretch of the imagination, be a case of a genuinely outraged individual or group exposing a hypocrite.

 

 

 

On the TV this morning is was reporting that one paper recons the source/part of the chain is someone who is a prominent anti vaxer