Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

How is the Tory Government Doing?

+19
Sluffy
Norpig
Cajunboy
gloswhite
Hipster_Nebula
boltonbonce
karlypants
Natasha Whittam
finlaymcdanger
Soul Kitchen
scottjames30
wessy
Whitesince63
Growler
Feby
wanderlust
okocha
Ten Bobsworth
Bolton Nuts
23 posters

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 29 ... 53, 54, 55

Go down  Message [Page 55 of 55]

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Whitesince63 wrote:Similarly, on your other pet subject, I see Cop 28 has voted to remove the “promise” to meet carbon deadlines so again, just maybe, it’s you that’s out of step. Net zero? Net madness.

Are you absolutely sure about that???

What you are talking about is that one of the draft agreements that all the countries stated a commitment to ending fossil fuels and a later one didn't.

It isn't what is in the draft agreements that matters though, it is what is in the FINAL agreement that everyone signs up to the counts and I refer you to todays news which is that for the first time ever the world has agreed to end the use of fossil fuels!

It isn't the best that could have been obtained as I've been saying above (if you ever bothered to read what I write) BUT it is the best 'practical' step towards it as for the first time ever the world is signing up to moving away from fossil fuels...

Summary
A new deal has been agreed at the UN climate summit in Dubai after days of negotiations.
For the first time, the deal calls on all countries to move away from using fossil fuels - but not to phase them out, something many governments wanted
The text recognises the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions if humanity is to limit temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels
The COP28 president said nations had "confronted realities and... set the world in the right direction"
Burning fossil fuels drives global warming, risking millions of lives. So far, governments have never collectively agreed to stop using them.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-67674841

So the world seems actually to be in step with me and not you...



Whitesince63 wrote:Look Sluffy, you can keep denying the increasing number of ordinary people in Western democracies rising up against politicians filling their countries with immigrants who have no respect for their cultures, values, religions or laws and labelling them extreme right wing, populists or some other crackpot insult but like it or not eventually even you will realise it’s true.

You are right on what you say, more and more people in the west do think like you - doesn't make them right though.

Immigration is an issue but is it worth giving up our freedom to solve it?

That's the point I've been making and which you, and plenty of others, can't see - let alone understand!

There's plenty of other ways to deal with immigration than the by the government attempting to politicise the judiciary.

See here for instance...

Clearing the legacy backlog of asylum claims
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67637211

The bottom line is I guess what sort of a world do you want to live in, one that cares for all or one that only cares for themselves?

Have you ever read Orwell's 1984?

Nineteen Eighty-Four (also published as 1984) is a dystopian novel and cautionary tale by English writer George Orwell. It was published on 8 June 1949 by Secker & Warburg as Orwell's ninth and final book completed in his lifetime. Thematically, it centres on the consequences of totalitarianism, mass surveillance and repressive regimentation of people and behaviours within society.[2][3] Orwell, a democratic socialist, modelled the authoritarian state in the novel on the Soviet Union in the era of Stalinism, and Nazi Germany.[4] More broadly, the novel examines the role of truth and facts within societies and the ways in which they can be manipulated.

And yes, I'm in the minority on that one too and always will be unfortunately.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I see someone committed suicide on that wonderful barge  Crying or Very sad

When did we turn into this unfeeling and nasty country? Why do we treat people desperate to leave their own countries (for whatever reason) for a better life as criminals?

This whole Rwanda issue is ridiculous, how many hundreds or millions has been wasted on this with not one person actually sent there and they still persist with the stupid plan!

I agree we can't take everyone who wants to come to this country but we need to take our fair share and treat them accordingly. The money spent on this stupid scheme would have been better used on working with the French to stop the illegal gangs putting desperate people on dinghies.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

karlypants wrote:I saw an article in the DM the other day on the Tories stating they are reducing migration by upping the minimum working salary to £34,000 I think it was.

This simply penalises normal people like ourselves where when the Mrs settled in the UK, it took at the time 3 years and had to jump through hoops and at a cost of approx £5,500 (this has increased since).

Once the Mrs had got her British citizenship, the government decided to up the minimum salary someone could earn to be able to bring someone from abroad such as a spouse or girlfriend to £21,000 and if they had dependents then it would go up a couple of grand more per dependent along with having to contribute at the time £800 for the use of the NHS and also extending the process to 5 years.

They are now talking about upping it to £34k obviously you can use a combination of savings and yearly salary but I feel that this is incredibly unfair as if someone who works in a supermarket or a cleaner for example on the minimum wage are unable to bring a loved one across and are denied happiness.

If they want to make sure that the people who come here are genuine then more stringent checks are needed and not to penalise the applicant in a way like this all to try and make it look like the government are cracking down on the migration when it is the migrants/refugees coming through Europe to the UK willy nilly.

Seems Rishi is doing something of a U turn on this...

Rishi Sunak has said the government is looking at "transitional arrangements" for British citizens with foreign spouses who earn less than £38,700.

It comes amid warnings new visa rules will tear families apart.

From next spring, British citizens and those settled in the UK must be earning at least £38,700 bring in foreign family members.

The government initially said the new rule would also cover people already in the UK who were reapplying for visas.

But Mr Sunak confirmed that the policy was being rethought, at Prime Minister's Questions.

Labour MP Sir Stephen Timms said: "The marriage plans of thousands of couples were dashed last week by the sudden announcement of a big increase in the salary requirement for a spouse visa.

"Can the prime minister give any reassurance to those with very well advanced marriage plans that appear now to have been scuppered and to families already in the UK who need to extend their stay who won't comply with the new rules?"

Mr Sunak said it was right that "anyone bringing dependents to the UK must be able to support them financially" and the income threshold had not been increased in "over a decade".

But he said the Home Office was looking at "transitional arrangements" to "ensure that they are fair" and an announcement would be made "shortly".

Last week, former Tory minister Lord Barwell said: "It is both morally wrong and unconservative to say that only the wealthiest can fall in love, marry someone and then bring them to the UK."

More here -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67705178

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Norpig wrote:I see someone committed suicide on that wonderful barge  Crying or Very sad

When did we turn into this unfeeling and nasty country? Why do we treat people desperate to leave their own countries (for whatever reason) for a better life as criminals?

This whole Rwanda issue is ridiculous, how many hundreds or millions has been wasted on this with not one person actually sent there and they still persist with the stupid plan!

I agree we can't take everyone who wants to come to this country but we need to take our fair share and treat them accordingly. The money spent on this stupid scheme would have been better used on working with the French to stop the illegal gangs putting desperate people on dinghies.
Norpig, whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you on the Rwanda wastefulness I’m afraid you’re missing the point on immigration, especially illegal immigration completely. It isn’t just the UK, indeed the likes of France, Sweden, Holland and others are suffering worse than we are. Even today Macron has failed to get legislation through because like our own attempts, it isn’t strong enough and will still be frustrated by the ridiculously out of date human rights acts. 

Until the European states, including the U.K. get together and modernise and amend the legislation, nothing will prevent the increasing pace of immigration. Now you may accept people into this country who will never agree or abide by our cultures, laws and religions, but I and an increasing number of others do not. Look at the numbers currently crossing the Mediterranean and tell me where all these people are going to fit. 

Like the UK our health, education and housing situation is already unable to cope so adding 800k a year to it is just futile. Like you, I have no problem with sensible numbers of people coming here who are contributing to society, nor even those genuinely fleeing terror but sadly that’s not what we’re seeing. You can be as magnanimous as you like but unless we accept that we just can’t as a country continue to accept such people in vast numbers it will just continue to drag down our life and standards.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Whitesince63 wrote:
Norpig wrote:I see someone committed suicide on that wonderful barge  Crying or Very sad

When did we turn into this unfeeling and nasty country? Why do we treat people desperate to leave their own countries (for whatever reason) for a better life as criminals?

This whole Rwanda issue is ridiculous, how many hundreds or millions has been wasted on this with not one person actually sent there and they still persist with the stupid plan!

I agree we can't take everyone who wants to come to this country but we need to take our fair share and treat them accordingly. The money spent on this stupid scheme would have been better used on working with the French to stop the illegal gangs putting desperate people on dinghies.
Norpig, whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you on the Rwanda wastefulness I’m afraid you’re missing the point on immigration, especially illegal immigration completely. It isn’t just the UK, indeed the likes of France, Sweden, Holland and others are suffering worse than we are. Even today Macron has failed to get legislation through because like our own attempts, it isn’t strong enough and will still be frustrated by the ridiculously out of date human rights acts. 

Until the European states, including the U.K. get together and modernise and amend the legislation, nothing will prevent the increasing pace of immigration. Now you may accept people into this country who will never agree or abide by our cultures, laws and religions, but I and an increasing number of others do not. Look at the numbers currently crossing the Mediterranean and tell me where all these people are going to fit. 

Like the UK our health, education and housing situation is already unable to cope so adding 800k a year to it is just futile. Like you, I have no problem with sensible numbers of people coming here who are contributing to society, nor even those genuinely fleeing terror but sadly that’s not what we’re seeing. You can be as magnanimous as you like but unless we accept that we just can’t as a country continue to accept such people in vast numbers it will just continue to drag down our life and standards.

Thing is though 63, many of the ones who are getting here seem to be "genuinely fleeing terror".

Are more people being granted asylum?

In the first nine months of 2023, 33,239 people were granted asylum. That is only about 200 short of the record for a full year, which was 2002.

That is partly because people on the legacy backlog from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria and Yemen have been asked to fill out a questionnaire instead of having face-to-face interviews.

The Home Office said that 95% of applicants from those countries are usually granted asylum anyway.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67637211

I would use a different argument myself, namely why are these people fleeing from terror not seeking asylum in the first (second or even third) safe country they get to instead of cross the borders of Spain, Greece, Germany, etc, to get to France in order to illegally cross the Channel?

Maybe, just maybe the answer is, if they go to all that trouble to get to the UK and then get end up in Rwanda, then perhaps they might simply claim asylum in Spain, France, Germany etc, which they should be doing anyway?

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Yes, I see that Sluffy and if all or most refugees arriving illegally were being sent to Rwanda I could see the deterrent effect but only a few hundred will be. Will that seriously deter those risking their lives crossing the channel? Even migrants interviewed in Calais say it won’t so I genuinely just can’t see the point of persisting with it, especially given the cost. Also as you say, if they were genuinely fleeing terror they would surely be happy in any of the safe countries in the EU, not necessarily making a bee line for the UK. 

Until Western countries work together to stem the flow things will just continue to deteriorate. Whether there’s a serious intention to do that given that most European states have need of young people to fill jobs in countries with ageing populations is a question we must ask. With the numbers now reportedly crossing the Mediterranean it should be a concern for the whole of Europe and only by working together can we hope to find a suitable resolution.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

You've sort of missed my point which is why do these people travel through the likes of Spain, France, Italy, Germany etc to illegally come to the UK?

Once their reason for coming here is put a stop to then they have no reason to come here do they...?

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Sluffy wrote:You've sort of missed my point which is why do these people travel through the likes of Spain, France, Italy, Germany etc to illegally come to the UK?

Once their reason for coming here is put a stop to then they have no reason to come here do they...?
I didn’t miss your point Sluffy, I agreed with you that there has to be a reason why so many want to come here. I don’t think you have to be a genius to work out why though. Free legal representation, free accommodation, free food, free healthcare and even a hand out to spend. They even get free bikes so they can get about so given that why wouldn’t you want to come here? Fooking ridiculous.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Whitesince63 wrote:
Sluffy wrote:You've sort of missed my point which is why do these people travel through the likes of Spain, France, Italy, Germany etc to illegally come to the UK?

Once their reason for coming here is put a stop to then they have no reason to come here do they...?
I didn’t miss your point Sluffy, I agreed with you that there has to be a reason why so many want to come here. I don’t think you have to be a genius to work out why though. Free legal representation, free accommodation, free food, free healthcare and even a hand out to spend. They even get free bikes so they can get about so given that why wouldn’t you want to come here? Fooking ridiculous.

Exactly.

So if instead we provided the same sort of support to them as what Spain, France, Germany, etc do, then it takes away their incentive to specifically come here doesn't it?

The question then becomes why hasn't the Tory government that has been in power for the last 13 years done nothing about changing this?

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Sluffy wrote:

Exactly.

So if instead we provided the same sort of support to them as what Spain, France, Germany, etc do, then it takes away their incentive to specifically come here doesn't it?

The question then becomes why hasn't the Tory government that has been in power for the last 13 years done nothing about changing this?
Unfortunately Sluffy, there are so many organisations involved now that trying to change anything would immediately be jumped upon and criticised from pillar to post. Like I keep saying, until somebody has the backbone to actually limit the draw factor here it isn’t going to change. I know you like to blame it on the Tories but do you seriously believe it would be any better under Labour?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Whitesince63 wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

Exactly.

So if instead we provided the same sort of support to them as what Spain, France, Germany, etc do, then it takes away their incentive to specifically come here doesn't it?

The question then becomes why hasn't the Tory government that has been in power for the last 13 years done nothing about changing this?
Unfortunately Sluffy, there are so many organisations involved now that trying to change anything would immediately be jumped upon and criticised from pillar to post. Like I keep saying, until somebody has the backbone to actually limit the draw factor here it isn’t going to change. I know you like to blame it on the Tories but do you seriously believe it would be any better under Labour?

Jesus Christ man, haven't you understood by now that I don't support any political party???

Politics is about power NOT about doing what is right.

The Republican Party in America is playing politics at the moment and the result is that Ukraine people are being killed because the funding for ammunition has been cut off due to their 'games'.

The Democratic Administration in America is playing politics and vetoed a ceasefire in Gaza and as a result innocent Palestinians are being killed and maimed due to their 'games'.

Don't you understand how the world really works by now???

It's not a matter of the Conservatives doing nothing to deter the benefits of immigrants coming to the UK rather than stay in France/Spain/Germany - they could have done but didn't because there simply was not enough votes in it for them at the time - they had bigger fish to catch (and votes to get) by getting Brexit done - and with it an 80 seat majority!!!

Politics is a game to win power and to then hold on to - it isn't anything to do what is right or wrong for the country or anyone else apart from themselves.

They are ALL the same - I don't hate the Tories, I don't love Labour - they ALL  are out to do the best for themselves in order to win and retain POWER - it's all about focusing on getting the people to vote for them - NOT to do what is best for the country or the world.

Why is immigration such a big issue right now - I mean we've all known there was an issue with it for years and years, so why is it so important to seen to be doing something now???

Well I'll tell you.

It's because there is an election due that can now be seen on the horizon and the Conservatives need something solid to show the voters in order to get their votes and hopefully retain power.

They are desperate to say 'look this is what we've achieved - vote for us' - what else have they got to show for the last 13 years...?

The last time Labour was in power Blair lied to the country to take us to war and left the country all but bankrupt, when they finally were voted out - can't you see it isn't Labour bad, Tory good or even Tory bad, Labour good - its all just a meaningless game - they've all lost sight of ending needless wars, feeding the starving and saving the planet, making it a better place for ALL of us.

Can we achieve that if we tried?

Maybe not but isn't it better to try and fail than keep on playing meaningless games that achieve nothing?

Rwanda won't work, the prison boat won't work - all of this is just something to show to the voters on polling day - whoever gets in will scrap Rwanda and the boat and something other than immigration will take over as being the hot topic of the day instead - that's how it works.

Sadly you and millions of others want to believe 'your' political party is better than 'my' political party, or someone else's political party, when all it really is, is one minority segment of the whole wanting to take power and rule over the rest of us.

I mean logically how can that ever work when the majority of people combined who voted for someone else always outnumbers the numbers of people who voted for whoever happens to be in power at the time???

Think about it, when was there last time any party had the majority backing of the country?

The 2019 election that Boris won with an 80 seat majority still only amounted to 44% of all the votes cast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

As I say it is nothing but a game that I refuse to play so stop thinking of me as pro Labour and anti- Tory because I'm neither, I just see things as they are and not brainwashed in to believing that everything Tory is good and everything Labour is bad like you, or everything Tory is shit and everything Labour is amazing like Wanderlust and a few others on here do.

It is simply absolutely stupid for anyone to believe whatever political party they support is ALWAYS right about EVERYTHING - yet plenty folk do!!!

If that isn't being brainwashed - then I don't know what is.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Point of order:
I consider the current Labour party to be Thatcherite-lite and haven't voted for them in years.
Also Blair didn't bankrupt the country - he merely didn't cover his expenditure by increasing the national debt i.e. kicking the can down the road as the current shambles have.
That aside, and ignoring the ill-informed dig, I broadly agree with the points made above regarding power over ethics.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:Point of order:
I consider the current Labour party to be Thatcherite-lite and haven't voted for them in years.
Also Blair didn't bankrupt the country - he merely didn't cover his expenditure by increasing the national debt i.e. kicking the can down the road as the current shambles have.
That aside, and ignoring the ill-informed dig, I broadly agree with the points made above regarding power over ethics.

Fwiw, I was referred specifically to the 'Labour' Party and not Blair (Blair wasn't even an MP anymore, let alone PM when Brown's administration was defeated.  He quit and didn't stand in the June 2007 General Election which pre-dated the sub-prime banking crisis that led to the famous note from Liam Byrne when in his role as Deputy Chancellor of the Exchequer) and I hardly believe myself to be ill-informed based on years of your very own proclamations that everything Tory is automatically bad and everything Labour is good - and that you state that because of where you live you use your vote tactically in an attempt to get the Tory candidate out rather than support the Labour candidate who has no chance of winning - and not that you endorse (nor even support) what the candidate you do vote for, is standing for.

In a sense by doing this you to are using your vote for 'power' rather than using it to support your 'ethics'.

(Nothing wrong in doing so btw, it is all part of the game I talk about and which politics should be viewed as).

Politics has always been about power and not ethics - (as exampled by you voting to stop someone winning rather than vote for the person who you actually would want to win) - Machiavelli wrote his book on this theme just over 500 years ago (1513), so it certainly isn't anything new is it!

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:

.. you state that because of where you live you use your vote tactically in an attempt to get the Tory candidate out rather than support the Labour candidate who has no chance of winning - and not that you endorse (nor even support) what the candidate you do vote for, is standing for.

In a sense by doing this you to are using your vote for 'power' rather than using it to support your 'ethics'.
Not quite true. Although I vote tactically, the options are limited here and recent Liberal candidates and manifestos have simply been more aligned with my ethical position than others. Moreover they have had better personal ethics, integrity and shown they actually care for people across society.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

wanderlust wrote:
Not quite true. Although I vote tactically, the options are limited here and recent Liberal candidates and manifestos have simply been more aligned with my ethical position than others. Moreover they have had better personal ethics, integrity and shown they actually care for people across society.
I often feel drawn to the Liberal candidate even in my fairly safe Labour seat. My god, could it be happening!

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

.. you state that because of where you live you use your vote tactically in an attempt to get the Tory candidate out rather than support the Labour candidate who has no chance of winning - and not that you endorse (nor even support) what the candidate you do vote for, is standing for.

In a sense by doing this you to are using your vote for 'power' rather than using it to support your 'ethics'.
Not quite true. Although I vote tactically, the options are limited here and recent Liberal candidates and manifestos have simply been more aligned with my ethical position than others. Moreover they have had better personal ethics, integrity and shown they actually care for people across society.

Make your mind up!

You state you have voted tactically, now you are saying you vote Lib Dem because they best represent your views?

So be clear, are you saying you are no longer a Labour supporter and now a Lib Dem one?

I'm sure W63 will be fascinated to know if you've moved away from the Labour Party!

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

W63 doesn’t give a monkeys who lusty, you or anyone else votes. for. Although a Tory by belief and nature, I’d be prepared to vote for anyone who holds my values. Sadly at this moment, no party meets that criteria but purely on the basis that I have a vote and feel it my duty to use it I will in all probability vote Conservative again. Were Labour a party I could believe in I would have no problem voting for them but I know they will be a disaster for this country if/when they gain power so that isn’t a choice I’d make. This silly attitude that “they have to be better than the Tories” is both stupid and inaccurate. As I’ve stated many times, even a bad Tory government and boy is this a bad one, is still better than a current Labour one. Were the electoral system to change of course I may well vote differently but as it stands I see nothing to prevent me continuing to vote blue.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Whitesince63 wrote:W63 doesn’t give a monkeys who lusty, you or anyone else votes. for. Although a Tory by belief and nature, I’d be prepared to vote for anyone who holds my values. Sadly at this moment, no party meets that criteria but purely on the basis that I have a vote and feel it my duty to use it I will in all probability vote Conservative again. Were Labour a party I could believe in I would have no problem voting for them but I know they will be a disaster for this country if/when they gain power so that isn’t a choice I’d make. This silly attitude that “they have to be better than the Tories” is both stupid and inaccurate. As I’ve stated many times, even a bad Tory government and boy is this a bad one, is still better than a current Labour one. Were the electoral system to change of course I may well vote differently but as it stands I see nothing to prevent me continuing to vote blue.

You did realise I was joking above didn't you???

Wanderlust has tied himself up in knots again trying to wriggle away from something he had previously wrote and as a result he's left himself open to having a bit of fun poked at him, namely is he still a die hard Labourite or a new born Liberal!

I've certainly no interested in how he votes (why would I???) but I did think you a die hard Tory (this is the worst Tory government ever but still a million times better than Labour - type of thing) would have fun teasing him about his apparent seismic shift from Labour to Liberal.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Interesting article in the Guardian about water bills. 
One of Thatcher's last acts as PM was to privatise the 10 largest water companies in 1989
Since privatisation the Water companies have paid shareholders £53 BILLION in dividends.
That equates almost the total amount of debt they currently have (£60 billion)
A good proportion of the water bills we get today is used not to repair pipes, build new reservoirs or clean up water discharge into our rivers and beaches but to service these (rising) debts - in my area (Anglian Water) it's 24% of the bill.

CLICK HERE to read the article and by entering your postcode you can find out how much of your water bill goes towards paying dividends.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I am being a bit of an 'I told you so' here but I'm happy to do so on this occasion because I took an awful lot of shit at the time from one or two on here when I pointed out that any message sent on a phone has both a 'sender' and a 'receiver' and if Boris Johnson (or anyone else as in this case pertaining to Penny Mordaunt) deletes them / loses their phone / whatever, then the 'receiver' will still retain a copy!

Meaning that nothing can be lost unless both sender and receiver act together to deliberately delete everything.

Fwiw Hancock handed his phone to his ghost writer who promptly passed it on to the newspapers and nothing dodgy from Hancock, Johnson or anybody else was found on it - just as I had predicted.

This from todays news states how this still remains true.

So can WhatsApp messages simply vanish?

Chats are stored separately on each person's device.

So if Person A and Person B are exchanging messages, then both of their phones will have a full, and separate, record of their conversation.

Messages can only be deleted for everybody up to 48 hours after they are sent - and a note appears for all participants saying this has happened.

But any messages older than that can only be deleted by someone on their own phone.

So if Person A deletes a message that is more than two days old, Person B will still have it.

It can only be deleted from Person B's phone by someone who physically picks up that phone and gets into their WhatsApp account.

There's also a feature called disappearing messages.


But that feature only launched in the UK in November 2020 and messages sent before this was switched on would not vanish.

Boris Johnson said that he factory reset his phone. This would not affect the record of his conversation with Penny Mordaunt that was stored on her phone, even if he no longer had it.

He also said he changed his number. Again - whether he started a new WhatsApp account or transferred his old one to the new number, this would not affect the data stored on Ms Mordaunt's phone.

Finally, he mentioned a WhatsApp server outage at the time. An outage at WhatsApp HQ might prevent message sending, but it would not affect the content of messages already sent.

WhatsApp messages are never stored on WhatsApp servers.

If they are backed up, they will be stored on either Apple or Google servers, depending on whether the phone is iPhone or Android.


And they are stored using end-to-end encryption, meaning that only the sender and recipient's devices can read them.

Even if WhatsApp or someone else were to access them, they would not be able to tamper with them.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67780595

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 55 of 55]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 29 ... 53, 54, 55

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum