Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1021 [SLACK_001235] · slack_pm:msg:10659

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

I don't know what happens if we get overruled - I guess we just have to redact them in the same way they are already redacted

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2021-10-13 14:03 Andrew Rambaut open

I am in the same position. We have been asked for huge tranches of emails and we are refusing to say what exists even.
2021-10-13 14:04 Andrew Rambaut open

I will check with our lawyer but it only requires one of us to say no.
2021-10-13 14:06 Edward C. Holmes open

I have to say no
2021-10-13 14:06 Andrew Rambaut open

That's what I mean.
2021-10-13 14:07 Andrew Rambaut

I don't know what happens if we get overruled - I guess we just have to redact them in the same way they are already redacted
2021-10-13 14:10 Edward C. Holmes open

Ron's is the most interesting
2021-10-13 14:12 Edward C. Holmes open

I also suspect a release would not help SAGO
2021-10-13 14:12 Kristian G. Andersen open

I suggest you both just say "no" to Jeremy - or have the lawyers say "no". He/they will then have to figure out what todo next.
2021-10-13 14:12 Edward C. Holmes open

I said no already. Very clearly!!!