I bet it's actually in complete compliance with their records retention policy. And rightly so to be fair.Some might say that factory resetting a government phone containing thousands of messages highly relevant to a public inquiry is a potentially criminal act. Certainly worth police investigation at the very least.
Everyone else’s (bar Sunak’s - what an amazing coincidence) were retained. All of Johnson’s from the period post the inquiry being called also still exist.I bet it's actually in complete compliance with their records retention policy. And rightly so to be fair.
It's highly likely only meeting minutes have an extended RRP.
I'm not doubting it's almost certainly shady as hell. But it's highly unlikely to be against policy, probably quite the opposite. (Spoken as a data protection specialist in the civil service).Everyone else’s (bar Sunak’s - what an amazing coincidence) were retained. All of Johnson’s from the period post the inquiry being called also still exist.
He was obviously just really unlucky that his disappeared for the period most likely to land him with criminal charges.
Aren't most data retention periods for public bodies 6 years? They certainly have been in the councils I have worked in?I'm not doubting it's almost certainly shady as hell. But it's highly unlikely to be against policy, probably quite the opposite. (Spoken as a data protection specialist in the civil service).
And, unless there is good ground to suspect a crime (sadly being a narcissist isn't a crime, nor is being a liar, nor is being brick at your job), there is nothing for the police to look at.
There might be scope for misconduct in public office after the enquiry, but the bar for that is quite high and unlikely to be reached. Some level of negligence resulting in deaths might come out, although again it's unlikely to produce the evidence base to meet the test for manslaughter.
Depends on what the data is, the legal basis for processing and the justification to retain it. There is no blanket position. Policies are set based on a reasonableness balanced against business need, public need and excessive holding of personal data.Aren't most data retention periods for public bodies 6 years? They certainly have been in the councils I have worked in?
I work in a school. Our records have to be retained for 6 years. Seems incredible that government records wouldn’t be kept for at least that long - and surely should be for a lot longer.Aren't most data retention periods for public bodies 6 years? They certainly have been in the councils I have worked in?
That’s the records in your approved and provisioned systems though.I work in a school. Our records have to be retained for 6 years. Seems incredible that government records wouldn’t be kept for at least that long - and surely should be for a lot longer.
All of the messages were sent and received on government issued phones, which changes the nature of the material when it comes to retaining it.That’s the records in your approved and provisioned systems though.
If you start passing notes in the corridor who can enforce the retention policy.
They are using WhatsApp because it’s not managed.
Oh I agree it was wilful destruction, likely to cover up some kind of crime.All of the messages were sent and received on government issued phones, which changes the nature of the material when it comes to retaining it.
It is as clear as it can be that the messages were deliberately deleted. Only two people’s messages have ‘disappeared’ (Johnson’s and Sunak’s) from government phones; and the 10,000 or so messages which have ‘disappeared’ are from the period that the inquiry is most interested in. Makes you wonder just what was in them. Hard to get away from the conclusion that they must have contained potentially incriminating material.
Yes. Not quite in the same car-crash-interview league as the Prince Andrew one but even with a soft interviewer like Kuenssberg it was as you say a PR disaster and whatever they wanted to achieve, it failedWho on earth advised Michelle Mone to go on TV and put her side of the story? It was a PR nightmare. People in her position just can't see anything they do is wrong, they do not expect the rules to apply to them and their mates.
It's a jokeWho on earth advised Michelle Mone to go on TV and put her side of the story? It was a PR nightmare. People in her position just can't see anything they do is wrong, they do not expect the rules to apply to them and their mates.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.