General Chat

** Ann** wouldn't it be connected to a central point?
Joy I was more thinking, if it was easy to do for that office it might be as easy for more important places.

Probably Ann….astonishing they did what he did in front of a camera….might as well have stood in the middle of Piccadilly
:-D :-D :-D

from the DM on line.

"The decisions to use this space as his office have been idiotic. But the point here is this - someone repurposed the camera'.

He added: 'The implications of that from a security point of view is huge.'

It raises the prospect that someone may have known that the lovers canoodled against the office door and turned the camera to get the evidence that saw Mr Hancock leave his job and his wife on Saturday.

A Department of Health and Social Care investigation will now consider if the camera was swivelled around, and if so, who did it.

Documents seen by The Daily Telegraph say a Scotland Yard security review said that a CCTV camera in his office should have a 'limited field of vision' to 'ensure privacy'.

It says: 'The building has several balconies and terraces and it is proposed these will also need to be covered by security cameras.'

And a source told the newspaper that on two occasions Mr Hancock has had work done to extend his office, including expanding into an anteroom at the end of 2020, which will be looked at by the Whitehall probe launched yesterday.

Sources familiar with the ninth-floor office in Victoria Street in central London say alterations were carried out twice while Mr Hancock was health secretary, once to carve out the ante room from his office and then to extend the anteroom towards the end of last year.

Sajid Javid has taken over the office, and has had the CCTV camera above the meeting table taped up and disabled. "


Does this mean SJ doesn't want to be caught?

I want to know why the use of private mobiles for contract work isn't being investigated! :-| :-|

Have they said it isn't or has it been mentioned at all? where have you seen the info that it has Maggie.

Well, in April there was an 'investigation by No. 10' about texts on Johnson's personal phone concerning "text messages with the billionaire businessman James Dyson after concerns were raised about the prime minister’s texted promises to change tax rules."
So, it seems, changing text rules to suit your chums is okay, and nothing's been heard about the alleged 'investigation'.

Two days ago, there was a 'threat' of an inquiry regarding the latest use of private emails for official work, (Hancock in particular) but Johnson has said it's allowed.
Not sure were he got that information from.
So lucrative contracts can be made using personal email, and they can't be investigated for fraud.
That's jolly handy!

It also begs the question - why is the taxpayer paying for work phones if (as Johnson says) they don't have to be used!