This may work:
Oh thank you. My daughter got a new phone and transferring the WA chats to it via google drive backup did not work entirely as by far not all messages were transferred. I will give “ChatMover” a try, hope it works better.
B. Johnson has probably also used it to hand over all chats. 
And of course no (potentially incriminating) chats were removed before hand…
Missing evidence:
Mr Johnson has said he has given his messages to the Cabinet Office and would be “more than happy” for them to be passed to the inquiry unredacted.
But the former prime minister has not handed over any messages from before April 2021 - more than a year into the pandemic - because his phone was involved in a security breach and has not been turned on since, his spokesman said.
In April 2021, it emerged that Mr Johnson’s personal mobile phone number had been freely available on the internet for 15 years, leading to concerns over the device’s security.
Mr Johnson has written to the Cabinet Office to ask whether technical support can be given so the content can be retrieved without compromising security, his spokesman added.
I’m sure that technical assistance can be made available … 
In a letter to the head of the Covid inquiry Baroness Hallett, Mr Johnson said he would be sending her “all unredacted WhatsApps I provided to the Cabinet Office”.
… which, presumably, undermines the Cabinet’s case.
Be funny when it does
“Slippery” Sunak:
In reply to any question about his government’s reaction to the covid inquiry request for all data, “Slippery’s” replies seem to be composed entirely of
The government is carefully considering next steps over its handling of the Covid pandemic data request.
The government has given tens of thousands of documents to the official Covid inquiry “in a sprit of candour and transparency” (sic).
All requested forms will not be handed over, adding it was important to “learn the lessons of Covid”.
With answers like that, he demeans himself and his government - his personal part in the appalling Tory government reaction to the covid pandemic with a consequent massive loss of life is well known:
As chancellor at the height of the pandemic, the UK’s new prime minister had a profound impact on its course and outcomes. His actions call into question his judgment about the link between health and wealth.
What is not known are the contents and results of the WhatsApp “discussions” which formulated the decisions which caused unnecessary suffering and loss of life.
Hi
Where are the messages on Boris’ other phone?
Easy to find out, just ask the Chinese for a copy.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.
Lady Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before Eat Out to Help Out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial Eat Out to Help Out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
Eat Out to Help Out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later
The then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it.
Sunak lands in the soup over this shambles … 
Cabinet Office lawyers have told the former prime minister that public money would “cease to be available” if he breaks conditions such as releasing evidence without permission, the Sunday Times reported.
The Cabinet Office said there were “important principles at stake” - such as the issue of privacy (1).
The Sunday Times detailed a letter sent by Cabinet Office lawyers to Mr Johnson last week which suggests that his actions could see him lose public funding for his legal defence.
“The funding offer will cease to be available to you if you knowingly seek to frustrate or undermine, either through your own actions or the actions of others, the government’s position in relation to the inquiry unless there is a clear and irreconcilable conflict of interest on a particular point at issue,” it said.
They added that funding would “only remain available” if he complied with conditions such as sending the Cabinet Office “any witness statement or exhibit which you intend to provide to the inquiry so that it can be security checked (2) by appropriate officials”.
(1) secrecy
(2) censored
Threats from “Slippery’s” minions, eh … 
That’ll just get BJ’s back up … 
So he should! Eat out to help out, at tax payers expense was a straight forward abuse of taxes raised, when there were and still are, far better and more deserving causes.
Apparently those messages reveal Sunaks plot to oust Johnson, another reason he is trying to keep them hidden.
1 Like
Problems with evidence provided to the Covid inquiry by some government departments could disrupt progress, the inquiry’s lead lawyer has said.
Hugo Keith KC said many departments had responded under “demanding timescales”. But he raised concerns that some draft statements from witnesses contained “insufficient detail” and deadlines for providing information had been missed. He also noted that some departments, particularly the Cabinet Office, had sought to redact documents.
The government has launched a legal challenge to the inquiry’s request for unredacted messages, and Mr Keith confirmed the High Court was likely to hear the case on or shortly after 30 June.
Mr Keith also told the hearing that similar redaction issues had occurred over information on messaging app Google Spaces used by the Cabinet Office, and WhatsApps from two special advisers in the Foreign Office.
He added that the health department had provided “much fuller disclosure”, including the WhatsApps of former Health Secretary Matt Hancock, “without any redactions at all for relevance” - and the Foreign Office and Cabinet Office should “pay close regard” to its approach.
Thalia Maragh, a lawyer representing families bereaved by Covid, said it “beggars belief” that the focus of the inquiry had been “diverted by the Cabinet Office’s legal challenge. The families are deeply disappointed that the Cabinet Office is persisting with its legal challenge to your ruling, which the families see as a further step to interfere in the inquiry’s independence and to control the material it receives, and what it can and cannot see.”
I hope that Sunak and his Cabinet Office receive a severe smacking from the High Court but I wouldn’t put it past “Slippery” to go to Appeal if he doesn’t like the decision … :
It’s going to raise some serious questions about Starmer in Durham and Sue Grey.
More popcorn …
Rishi Sunak says he is not worried about being embarrassed by messages seen by the Covid inquiry, despite a legal wrangle over their disclosure.
The prime minister insisted he was being transparent in his approach. He added that he was personally providing information, and it was taking up “a lot of my own time”.
Speaking to BBC political editor Chris Mason during a two-day trip to the United States, Mr Sunak said he could not comment on the specifics as the case was ongoing. But he insisted the government had acted with “candour and transparency”, including disclosing more than 55,000 documents so far, with “more to come”.
Dixie Maloney, a corporate events organiser, stayed at the former prime minister’s grace-and-favour country mansion on 7 May 2021 when indoor gatherings between different households were banned except when “reasonably necessary” for reasons such as work or childcare.
She is understood to have been informally helping to plan the couples’ festival-style wedding, which took place in the Downing Street garden three weeks later.
A spokesperson for Maloney issued a statement saying she would not have done anything that she believed at the time to be unlawful. Johnson’s spokesperson said the stay was “entirely lawful” and sources close to him said Maloney was allowed to be there for childcare reasons at a time when Carrie was pregnant.
Indoor gatherings between different households were only allowed if they were regarded as “reasonably necessary” for work purposes, informal childcare or to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person, including someone who was pregnant.
A spokesperson for Maloney told the Guardian: “Ms Maloney took her obligations under the relevant Covid restrictions very seriously. She would not have done anything at the relevant time unless she honestly believed that it was lawful to do so.
“Ms Maloney has never been formally engaged to work for either Boris or Carrie Johnson, nor has she ever held any public role, whether in government or otherwise.”
A spokesperson for Johnson said: “This was entirely lawful, and it was covered by relevant provisions in the Covid regulations. To suggest otherwise is totally untrue.”
Back to bluster …
The government’s legal challenge to the Covid inquiry’s demand to see Boris Johnson’s diaries and WhatsApps in full is under way in the High Court. The Cabinet Office rejected the demand, arguing it should not have to hand over material it does not consider relevant.
Covid inquiry chair Baroness Hallett says it should be up to her decide what is relevant. The government took the unprecedented step of bringing a judicial review of Baroness Hallett’s order.
It is the first time a government has mounted a legal challenge to an inquiry it set up itself.
Terms of Reference - UK Covid-19 Inquiry.
The Prime Minister has set the Terms of Reference for the UK Covid-19 Inquiry. This means that the Inquiry has been formally established under the Inquiries Act (2005) and is able to begin its work officially.
The inquiry’s Terms of Reference include:
The aims of the Inquiry are to:
- Examine the COVID-19 response and the impact of the pandemic in England, Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland, and produce a factual narrative account, including:
a) The public health response across the whole of the UK, including
i) preparedness and resilience;
ii) how decisions were made, communicated, recorded, and implemented;
iii) decision-making between the governments of the UK;
iv) the roles of, and collaboration between, central government, devolved
administrations, regional and local authorities, and the voluntary and
community sector;
v) the availability and use of data, research and expert evidence;
vi) legislative and regulatory control and enforcement;
for which, one would assume, the inquiry would require unrestricted access in order to see the full picture.
The government’s legal challenge to the Covid inquiry’s demand to see Boris Johnson’s diaries and WhatsApps in full has been heard in the High Court.
A ruling from the hearing, before Lord Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Garnham, will be given at a later date.
Court to rule on Covid inquiry legal clash over Boris Johnson’s WhatsApp messages
The Cabinet Office is set to learn whether it has won its legal challenge to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry chairwoman’s request for Boris Johnson’s unredacted WhatsApp messages, notebooks and diaries.
High Court judges are expected to hand down their decision over the Government’s judicial review of Baroness Heather Hallett’s order at 2.30pm on Thursday.
Will this be another slap for “Slippery” Sunak … 
Like a circle in a spiral, a wheel within a wheel…
Never ending on beginning,
On an ever-spinning reel
Like a snowball down a mountain,
Or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that’s turning
Running rings around the moon??
Cabinet Ofice loses legal challenge over Covid Inquiry
The Cabinet Office has lost its legal challenge over the UK Covid-19 inquiry chairwoman’s request for Boris Johnson’s unredacted WhatsApp messages, notebooks and diaries.