Government considered killing all Britain's pet CATS at the start of the Covid pandemic because they feared they were spreading virus, claims former health minister
Ministers considered killing ALL Britain's pet cats at the start of the Covid pandemic Ministers briefly considered ordering all domestic cats in Britain to be killed amid fears they could be spreading Covid, a former health minister has said. Lord Bethell said the concern about pets underlined how little was known about the disease at the outbreak of the pandemic in 2020. It comes after The Daily Telegraph published details from over 100,000 leaked WhatsApp messages between ministers, officials and scientists throughout the pandemic. Lord Bethell told Channel 4 News: 'What we shouldn't forget is how little we understood about this disease. There was a moment we were very unclear about whether domestic pets could transmit the disease.'
Piers Morgan asked Isabel Oakeshotte an interesting question. The answer makes Hancock look marginally less stupid, and the journalist far worse.
The question asked was whether Ms O had signed a Non Disclosure Agreement in relation to the info supplied to her by Matt H.
She replied that she had signed an NDA. She freely admitted that she had broken the terms of that NDA. She said that she believed this was justified for 2 reasons:-
1. The public interest; and 2. She did not believe that any public inquiry would be anything other than a "whitewash"
Remarkably, she also seems to suggest that Matt Hancock's reaction to all of this means that she no longer considers him to be her friend.
Brave call by whichever Lawyer acting for the newspaper okayed the publication of this...
Piers Morgan asked Isabel Oakeshotte an interesting question. The answer makes Hancock look marginally less stupid, and the journalist far worse.
The question asked was whether Ms O had signed a Non Disclosure Agreement in relation to the info supplied to her by Matt H.
She replied that she had signed an NDA. She freely admitted that she had broken the terms of that NDA. She said that she believed this was justified for 2 reasons:-
1. The public interest; and 2. She did not believe that any public inquiry would be anything other than a "whitewash"
Remarkably, she also seems to suggest that Matt Hancock's reaction to all of this means that she no longer considers him to be her friend.
Brave call by whichever Lawyer acting for the newspaper okayed the publication of this...
Surely the sole purpose of an NDA is to withhold information from the general public. Therefore if a public interest defence is permitted, then wouldnt that question whether there was any point of getting an NDA signed in the first place? Would her personal "whitewash" view stand up in court as a defence for breaching the NDA?
Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said teachers 'hate work' and were looking for 'an excuse' for time off during the pandemic in WhatsApp chats with Matt Hancock - who branded school unions 'absolute a**es'
Matt Hancock (left) made the comments in May 2020 at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, as teachers prepared to re-open schools, according to the latest tranche of leaked messages. Mr Hancock messaged the then-Education Secretary Sir Gavin Williamson (right) to congratulate him on a decision to delay A-level exams for a few weeks - as teachers prepared to re-open schools after the first lockdown in May. A second exchange between Mr Hancock and an aide in December 2020 revealed he called Sir Gavin 'mad' and opposed the reopening of schools due to fears of the second wave of coronavirus. On January 4, after many younger children had returned to classes for a single day, Mr Johnson announced schools would close and exams would be cancelled amid a national lockdown. They did not reopen until March 8, 2021.
Piers Morgan asked Isabel Oakeshotte an interesting question. The answer makes Hancock look marginally less stupid, and the journalist far worse.
The question asked was whether Ms O had signed a Non Disclosure Agreement in relation to the info supplied to her by Matt H.
She replied that she had signed an NDA. She freely admitted that she had broken the terms of that NDA. She said that she believed this was justified for 2 reasons:-
1. The public interest; and 2. She did not believe that any public inquiry would be anything other than a "whitewash"
Remarkably, she also seems to suggest that Matt Hancock's reaction to all of this means that she no longer considers him to be her friend.
Brave call by whichever Lawyer acting for the newspaper okayed the publication of this...
Surely the sole purpose of an NDA is to withhold information from the general public. Therefore if a public interest defence is permitted, then wouldnt that question whether there was any point of getting an NDA signed in the first place? Would her personal "whitewash" view stand up in court as a defence for breaching the NDA?
Technically, it is not the sole purpose. The person who signs it must receive something in return for it to be effective. Normally money.
In this instance Ms Jokeshite was paid to co-author a book for Matt Handjob. For which, presumably, she was paid lots of money. In any book of this sort, you are very likely to receive info that would be sensitive. You agree not to publish any nasty stuff, in return for being able to earn large amounts of money more effectively. While, of course, promising not to bite the hand that is feeding you.
Public interest defences are notoriously difficult for all concerned. So, for example, some female employee forced to sign an NDA in order to receive some money and a reference after being sacked for refusing to sleep with their boss may be treated rather differently than where the info is directly related to the pay (as here).
I've dealt with a few of these. And I would not like to give any opinion as to how this one will turn out. Although the legal arguments are likely to centre on public interest-not the "whitewash" which is there (IMO) for non-legal reasons.
I would like to see the law changed so that people are entitled to independent legal advice before signing an NDA. To stop what I consider to be appalling abusers of the system stopping people who do stick to agreements receiving money. Because, as you rightly say, no-one is going to give the money for the nda if it doesn't provide protection.
Piers Morgan asked Isabel Oakeshotte an interesting question. The answer makes Hancock look marginally less stupid, and the journalist far worse.
The question asked was whether Ms O had signed a Non Disclosure Agreement in relation to the info supplied to her by Matt H.
She replied that she had signed an NDA. She freely admitted that she had broken the terms of that NDA. She said that she believed this was justified for 2 reasons:-
1. The public interest; and 2. She did not believe that any public inquiry would be anything other than a "whitewash"
Remarkably, she also seems to suggest that Matt Hancock's reaction to all of this means that she no longer considers him to be her friend.
Brave call by whichever Lawyer acting for the newspaper okayed the publication of this...
Surely the sole purpose of an NDA is to withhold information from the general public. Therefore if a public interest defence is permitted, then wouldnt that question whether there was any point of getting an NDA signed in the first place? Would her personal "whitewash" view stand up in court as a defence for breaching the NDA?
Technically, it is not the sole purpose. The person who signs it must receive something in return for it to be effective. Normally money.
In this instance Ms Jokeshite was paid to co-author a book for Matt Handjob. For which, presumably, she was paid lots of money. In any book of this sort, you are very likely to receive info that would be sensitive. You agree not to publish any nasty stuff, in return for being able to earn large amounts of money more effectively. While, of course, promising not to bite the hand that is feeding you.
Public interest defences are notoriously difficult for all concerned. So, for example, some female employee forced to sign an NDA in order to receive some money and a reference after being sacked for refusing to sleep with their boss may be treated rather differently than where the info is directly related to the pay (as here).
I've dealt with a few of these. And I would not like to give any opinion as to how this one will turn out. Although the legal arguments are likely to centre on public interest-not the "whitewash" which is there (IMO) for non-legal reasons.
I would like to see the law changed so that people are entitled to independent legal advice before signing an NDA. To stop what I consider to be appalling abusers of the system stopping people who do stick to agreements receiving money. Because, as you rightly say, no-one is going to give the money for the nda if it doesn't provide protection.
The other thing to consider is that once an NDA is breached the damage is done, and in some cases money will not provide adequate compensation. I suppose our opinions can be coloured by what we think of those involved. In this case it is difficult to choose a side, as one is as bad as the other.
Piers Morgan asked Isabel Oakeshotte an interesting question. The answer makes Hancock look marginally less stupid, and the journalist far worse.
The question asked was whether Ms O had signed a Non Disclosure Agreement in relation to the info supplied to her by Matt H.
She replied that she had signed an NDA. She freely admitted that she had broken the terms of that NDA. She said that she believed this was justified for 2 reasons:-
1. The public interest; and 2. She did not believe that any public inquiry would be anything other than a "whitewash"
Remarkably, she also seems to suggest that Matt Hancock's reaction to all of this means that she no longer considers him to be her friend.
Brave call by whichever Lawyer acting for the newspaper okayed the publication of this...
Surely the sole purpose of an NDA is to withhold information from the general public. Therefore if a public interest defence is permitted, then wouldnt that question whether there was any point of getting an NDA signed in the first place? Would her personal "whitewash" view stand up in court as a defence for breaching the NDA?
Technically, it is not the sole purpose. The person who signs it must receive something in return for it to be effective. Normally money.
In this instance Ms Jokeshite was paid to co-author a book for Matt Handjob. For which, presumably, she was paid lots of money. In any book of this sort, you are very likely to receive info that would be sensitive. You agree not to publish any nasty stuff, in return for being able to earn large amounts of money more effectively. While, of course, promising not to bite the hand that is feeding you.
Public interest defences are notoriously difficult for all concerned. So, for example, some female employee forced to sign an NDA in order to receive some money and a reference after being sacked for refusing to sleep with their boss may be treated rather differently than where the info is directly related to the pay (as here).
I've dealt with a few of these. And I would not like to give any opinion as to how this one will turn out. Although the legal arguments are likely to centre on public interest-not the "whitewash" which is there (IMO) for non-legal reasons.
I would like to see the law changed so that people are entitled to independent legal advice before signing an NDA. To stop what I consider to be appalling abusers of the system stopping people who do stick to agreements receiving money. Because, as you rightly say, no-one is going to give the money for the nda if it doesn't provide protection.
The other thing to consider is that once an NDA is breached the damage is done, and in some cases money will not provide adequate compensation. I suppose our opinions can be coloured by what we think of those involved. In this case it is difficult to choose a side, as one is as bad as the other.
Just to add to your point.
Ms O claims that it is "not about the money". That's easy for her to say. At least, it won't be about her money. If you are acting for a person in H's position, who are you going to sue in what will be a very expensive action? Ms O, who is probably worth a million or 2? Or the Daily Telegraph, that is probably worth a hundred million or 2?
Then there is the fame. Her personal beliefs about the lockdown. And the political ambitions of her partner, Mr Tice. Who would love to join forces with some of the ERG in a new Right Wing Party.
My opinion tends not to be coloured by my opinions of the people concerned. The Law has always interested me more than the people involved. As it happens, I dislike both of them intensely. And I have acted for people far worse than either of them. However much I dislike Hancock, I feel sorry for him in this particular instance.
Comments
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/trip-of-just-50-miles-for-covid-test-shows-system-is-working-health-minister-said/ar-AA1848FV?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d61b5073131f4b7f8c25829b3367ce87&ei=25
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/care-homes-tell-matt-hancock-to-stop-hiding-from-truth-after-telegraph-whatsapp-leak/ar-AA1851z8?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d61b5073131f4b7f8c25829b3367ce87&ei=37
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64818969
Ministers considered killing ALL Britain's pet cats at the start of the Covid pandemic
Ministers briefly considered ordering all domestic cats in Britain to be killed amid fears they could be spreading Covid, a former health minister has said. Lord Bethell said the concern about pets underlined how little was known about the disease at the outbreak of the pandemic in 2020. It comes after The Daily Telegraph published details from over 100,000 leaked WhatsApp messages between ministers, officials and scientists throughout the pandemic. Lord Bethell told Channel 4 News: 'What we shouldn't forget is how little we understood about this disease. There was a moment we were very unclear about whether domestic pets could transmit the disease.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11809247/Ministers-considered-killing-Britains-pet-cats-start-Covid-pandemic.html
Piers Morgan asked Isabel Oakeshotte an interesting question. The answer makes Hancock look marginally less stupid, and the journalist far worse.
The question asked was whether Ms O had signed a Non Disclosure Agreement in relation to the info supplied to her by Matt H.
She replied that she had signed an NDA. She freely admitted that she had broken the terms of that NDA. She said that she believed this was justified for 2 reasons:-
1. The public interest; and
2. She did not believe that any public inquiry would be anything other than a "whitewash"
Remarkably, she also seems to suggest that Matt Hancock's reaction to all of this means that she no longer considers him to be her friend.
Brave call by whichever Lawyer acting for the newspaper okayed the publication of this...
Therefore if a public interest defence is permitted, then wouldnt that question whether there was any point of getting an NDA signed in the first place?
Would her personal "whitewash" view stand up in court as a defence for breaching the NDA?
Matt Hancock (left) made the comments in May 2020 at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, as teachers prepared to re-open schools, according to the latest tranche of leaked messages. Mr Hancock messaged the then-Education Secretary Sir Gavin Williamson (right) to congratulate him on a decision to delay A-level exams for a few weeks - as teachers prepared to re-open schools after the first lockdown in May. A second exchange between Mr Hancock and an aide in December 2020 revealed he called Sir Gavin 'mad' and opposed the reopening of schools due to fears of the second wave of coronavirus. On January 4, after many younger children had returned to classes for a single day, Mr Johnson announced schools would close and exams would be cancelled amid a national lockdown. They did not reopen until March 8, 2021.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11810051/Matt-Hancock-branded-teaching-unions-absolute-es-leaked-WhatsApps-Gavin-Williamson.html
In this instance Ms Jokeshite was paid to co-author a book for Matt Handjob. For which, presumably, she was paid lots of money. In any book of this sort, you are very likely to receive info that would be sensitive. You agree not to publish any nasty stuff, in return for being able to earn large amounts of money more effectively. While, of course, promising not to bite the hand that is feeding you.
Public interest defences are notoriously difficult for all concerned. So, for example, some female employee forced to sign an NDA in order to receive some money and a reference after being sacked for refusing to sleep with their boss may be treated rather differently than where the info is directly related to the pay (as here).
I've dealt with a few of these. And I would not like to give any opinion as to how this one will turn out. Although the legal arguments are likely to centre on public interest-not the "whitewash" which is there (IMO) for non-legal reasons.
I would like to see the law changed so that people are entitled to independent legal advice before signing an NDA. To stop what I consider to be appalling abusers of the system stopping people who do stick to agreements receiving money. Because, as you rightly say, no-one is going to give the money for the nda if it doesn't provide protection.
Wonder how his ex wife feels about that, let alone the general public?
I suppose our opinions can be coloured by what we think of those involved.
In this case it is difficult to choose a side, as one is as bad as the other.
Ms O claims that it is "not about the money". That's easy for her to say. At least, it won't be about her money. If you are acting for a person in H's position, who are you going to sue in what will be a very expensive action? Ms O, who is probably worth a million or 2? Or the Daily Telegraph, that is probably worth a hundred million or 2?
Then there is the fame. Her personal beliefs about the lockdown. And the political ambitions of her partner, Mr Tice. Who would love to join forces with some of the ERG in a new Right Wing Party.
My opinion tends not to be coloured by my opinions of the people concerned. The Law has always interested me more than the people involved. As it happens, I dislike both of them intensely. And I have acted for people far worse than either of them. However much I dislike Hancock, I feel sorry for him in this particular instance.