Reply to: Leaked Matt Hancock CCTV footage was in ‘public interest’ says Boris Johnson’s office

[AtW]

It is in the public interest due to the Covid regulations the Department for Health and Social Care were pushing in office environments on the date the images were taken.

The actual affair itself is not in the public interest. It is none of our business if ministers shag their aids, colleagues or protection teams.

And no public interest doesn't trump breaches of GDPR especially when it involves secretly videoing people in their workplace.

But overall leaking was in the public interest, so end of story - the so-called Official Secrets Act can feck right off.

Govt should get KBE for it.

[SueEllen]

These things shouldn't be down to a biased politician to decide. eg. Had the person being exposed been a Labour politician. Or an enemy of Boris Johnson in his own party.

You want the department of justice (or uk equivalent) to decide if the case warrants an arrest and trial. Then leave it to the grand jury of regular people to have the final say.

Another relevant question would be does the UK have any existing whistleblower protection laws for people who bypass the official secrets act in order to expose government corruption and wrong doing?

https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing

https://www.unison.org.uk/get-help/k...histleblowing/

You can't report a minister to themselves

[SueEllen]

But what if it's in the public interest as even Boris Johnson's office says!??

Public interest trumps everything surely?

It is in the public interest due to the Covid regulations the Department for Health and Social Care were pushing in office environments on the date the images were taken.

The actual affair itself is not in the public interest. It is none of our business if ministers shag their aids, colleagues or protection teams.

And no public interest doesn't trump breaches of GDPR especially when it involves secretly videoing people in their workplace.

[northernladuk]

Excellent question.

I'd say in this case when the office of Prime Minister himself says it's the public interest than what more do you want, myself or Her Majesty to say so?

But that's the problem, they've got too much skin in the game to say. It could serve them to say it, it could serve them to cover it up. Because they say so is exactly where the definition goes wrong.

[Fraidycat]

Excellent question.

I'd say in this case when the office of Prime Minister himself says it's the public interest than what more do you want, myself or Her Majesty to say so?

These things shouldn't be down to a biased politician to decide. eg. Had the person being exposed been a Labour politician. Or an enemy of Boris Johnson in his own party.

You want the department of justice (or uk equivalent) to decide if the case warrants an arrest and trial. Then leave it to the grand jury of regular people to have the final say.

Another relevant question would be does the UK have any existing whistleblower protection laws for people who bypass the official secrets act in order to expose government corruption and wrong doing?

[AtW]

But what defines public interest?

Excellent question.

I'd say in this case when the office of Prime Minister himself says it's the public interest than what more do you want, myself or Her Majesty to say so?

[malvolio]

But what if it's in the public interest as even Boris Johnson's office says!??

Public interest trumps everything surely?

One last answer in the vague hope you are not being deliberately thick but simply haven't grasped my point.

The affair is in the public interest since it potentially leaves both parties open to coercion. It is also in the looser definition of public interest that assorted Red top readers need things to fill their day.

It is also in the public interest, in the proper sense of the term, to find out who within the department is leaking classified material to newspapers to provide some titillation for their readers. And line their own pockets...

So the Hancock sideshow is not the real public interest issue.

[northernladuk]

But what if it's in the public interest as even Boris Johnson's office says!??

Public interest trumps everything surely?

But what defines public interest? The public will definitely be interested in an affair story so they can watch the soap opera unfold but that's not really the definition of public interest. If it affects his position and ability to do his job as a public servant then it could be in the publics interest. Snogging his aid in the meeting room, not really.

[AtW]

Any company that uses CCTV cameras should have procedures in place to prevent random people having access to the recordings and to stop those who do have access leaking the footage.

But what if it's in the public interest as even Boris Johnson's office says!??

Public interest trumps everything surely?

[malvolio]

It is a bit difficult to understand now that the Prime Minister's spokesman has said it was "in the public interest", in my book that trumps everything else.

Yeah, well, can't argue with ignorance - or refusal to understand someone else's point, which is the same thing.

[OwlHoot]

I still reckon Bojo was behind the leak in the first place, to give himself an excuse to sack Hancock without discrediting the Government by association for mistakes made in its handling of the Covid epidemic

[SueEllen]

It is a bit difficult to understand now that the Prime Minister's spokesman has said it was "in the public interest", in my book that trumps everything else.

Any company that uses CCTV cameras should have procedures in place to prevent random people having access to the recordings and to stop those who do have access leaking the footage.

The camera also shouldn't have been hidden e.g. signs to say the camera is there, and pointing in the wrong direction e.g. pointing inside the office rather than at the balcony.

This is why the Information Commissioner is involved.

Maybe your company needs to do more GDPR training?

[AtW]

Sorry if that's a bit difficult to understand.

It is a bit difficult to understand now that the Prime Minister's spokesman has said it was "in the public interest", in my book that trumps everything else.

[malvolio]

I refer you to - "The leaked CCTV footage which exposed Matt Hancock's affair was in the public interest, the Prime Minister's spokesman has said"

Public interest surely trumps anything?

Do pay attention...

The leakage of Hancock's misdemeanours is not the issue. Nobody really gives a stuff about him. He is, after all, a serial failure.

That is not the purpose of the investigation.

A cleared person (else they wouldn't have had access) breaching security rules to leak secure material without authorisation is the issue. What was leaked is irrelevant, the fact that it was leaked is what is exciting the security services.

Or, at its simplest, "We don't care what was leaked, we do care that it was".

Sorry if that's a bit difficult to understand.

[AtW]

No, but "materials" inside Government buildings are. They are protected places in the Act

I refer you to - "The leaked CCTV footage which exposed Matt Hancock's affair was in the public interest, the Prime Minister's spokesman has said"

Public interest surely trumps anything?