Family & Relationships2 mins ago
Should Damian Green Be Sacked?
91 Answers
http://
Or is there a kind of conspiracy against him by certain police officers?
Or is there a kind of conspiracy against him by certain police officers?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If it can be proved that he did any of these next two things ::
1....watched porn on his office laptop.....most companies would automatically sack anyone for doing that, as my ex-Employer, BT, did on a number of occasions.
2....If it can be proved that he lied about the above.
As it stands at the moment, he is still denying that he used his office computer to view porn, so unless he now confesses, or there is other evidence,.....no, I don't think he should be sacked at the present time.
1....watched porn on his office laptop.....most companies would automatically sack anyone for doing that, as my ex-Employer, BT, did on a number of occasions.
2....If it can be proved that he lied about the above.
As it stands at the moment, he is still denying that he used his office computer to view porn, so unless he now confesses, or there is other evidence,.....no, I don't think he should be sacked at the present time.
NO....it wasn't me but it did happen to two quite old friends of mine....ex-apprentices by the way....know them both since age 16 ! They were essentially nice lads.
But not only did they view some very questionable material, they then sent attachments of it to other people in the office. Silly boys.
But not only did they view some very questionable material, they then sent attachments of it to other people in the office. Silly boys.
It is worth reminding ourselves why Green’s computer was siezed in the first place.
// Sir David Normington, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office who had seen many leaks in his time, was a worried man. He feared a Home Office official was "deliberately and maliciously leaking material for political purposes". He was right.
Christopher Galley, 26, a would be Tory MP who worked in the Home Office, had secretly written to the Tories in May 2006 offering documents which he said would expose the chaos in the Government's immigration policy.
Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, became the Tory link man with Mr Galley. Over the next two years there were 20 leaks designed to undermine the authority of Britain's first woman Home Secretary. They included the accusation the Home Office feared a sharp rise in crime during the coming recession. Mr Green was yet again running rings round government ministers.
On November 19 2008 the police questioned Mr Galley [a Home Office Civil Servant] and over the next 17 hours it became clear that he had regularly supplied [leaked documents] to Mr Green. //
http://
// Sir David Normington, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office who had seen many leaks in his time, was a worried man. He feared a Home Office official was "deliberately and maliciously leaking material for political purposes". He was right.
Christopher Galley, 26, a would be Tory MP who worked in the Home Office, had secretly written to the Tories in May 2006 offering documents which he said would expose the chaos in the Government's immigration policy.
Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, became the Tory link man with Mr Galley. Over the next two years there were 20 leaks designed to undermine the authority of Britain's first woman Home Secretary. They included the accusation the Home Office feared a sharp rise in crime during the coming recession. Mr Green was yet again running rings round government ministers.
On November 19 2008 the police questioned Mr Galley [a Home Office Civil Servant] and over the next 17 hours it became clear that he had regularly supplied [leaked documents] to Mr Green. //
http://
//scooping Why on earth are retired officers weighing in on this? Something not right.//
Because said ex policemen were discredited because they barged into the Commons offices in 2008 illegally and if you remember it was headed by Bob Quick, who has now blown the whistle on the Government with this sexual harassment stuff which has been blown up out of all proportion. It was his way of getting back. There is absolutely no evidence of what they said they found. remember also the Speaker of the time had to resign for allowing the raid to happen.
Because said ex policemen were discredited because they barged into the Commons offices in 2008 illegally and if you remember it was headed by Bob Quick, who has now blown the whistle on the Government with this sexual harassment stuff which has been blown up out of all proportion. It was his way of getting back. There is absolutely no evidence of what they said they found. remember also the Speaker of the time had to resign for allowing the raid to happen.
// ex policemen were discredited because they barged into the Commons offices in 2008 illegally //
They were not discredited, and the raid on Green’s office was not illegal.
From my link above.
// Warrants were obtained for Mr Green's home and constituency offices but crucially not for his Parliamentary office. The police were told that under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act unless consent was refused by the Parliamentary authorities, one was not required.
On November 26 three police officers went to the House of Commons to meet Jill Pay, the Serjeant-at-Arms.
Later, Michael Martin, the Speaker, would say in a statement said that the police had not explained that Mrs Pay was not obliged to agree to the search. Mr Quick later contradicted the Speaker and maintained that there was a "protracted conversation" with Mrs Pay about warrants.
Whatever the truth, the next morning after the meeting, the police returned, told her the identity of the MP, and she signed the consent form for the search. Mrs Pay had apparently told Malcolm Jack, the Clerk of the Commons, that the Director of Public Prosecutions no less, Keir Starmer, had approved the raid. There might have been a misunderstanding as Mr Starmer was not told in advance. The raid was approved under a misapprehension. //
They were not discredited, and the raid on Green’s office was not illegal.
From my link above.
// Warrants were obtained for Mr Green's home and constituency offices but crucially not for his Parliamentary office. The police were told that under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act unless consent was refused by the Parliamentary authorities, one was not required.
On November 26 three police officers went to the House of Commons to meet Jill Pay, the Serjeant-at-Arms.
Later, Michael Martin, the Speaker, would say in a statement said that the police had not explained that Mrs Pay was not obliged to agree to the search. Mr Quick later contradicted the Speaker and maintained that there was a "protracted conversation" with Mrs Pay about warrants.
Whatever the truth, the next morning after the meeting, the police returned, told her the identity of the MP, and she signed the consent form for the search. Mrs Pay had apparently told Malcolm Jack, the Clerk of the Commons, that the Director of Public Prosecutions no less, Keir Starmer, had approved the raid. There might have been a misunderstanding as Mr Starmer was not told in advance. The raid was approved under a misapprehension. //
“The police do not do vendettas.”
They very clearly do. This information about Mr Green (whether it’s true or not) was gathered during a highly contentious raid on his office in Parliament. The enquiry which prompted the raid was into allegations of leaks of information from the Home Office. Mr Green had been Shadow Home Secretary during the period of the allegations and the Met’s Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick decided to arrest him (though interestingly chose not to arrest or even interview Jacqui Smith, the Labour Home Secretary at the time who may have been in a better position to leak information). The information about the contents of Mr Green’s computer played no part in the subject of that enquiry. Now, nine years on, a former police officer involved in the matter discloses his notes which he made at the time. I can think of no other reason for him (a) to retain such notes personally or (b) to make them public other than to pursue a vendetta against senior Tory figures.
The Metropolitan Police (and in particular former AC Quick) have a good reason to feel aggrieved. Among the alleged leaks said to have taken place was the publication of Mr Quick’s home address. But during the enquiries it transpired that Mrs Quick was running a car hire business from their address and it was published online for all to see. Mr Quick then accused the Tories of being “wholly corrupt”. Mr Green was cleared of any wrongdoing and the incident cost AC Quick his career (his demise somewhat hastened by his walking along Downing Street with a confidential file showing details of a counter-terrorism operation on plain view).
They say that revenge is a dish best served cold and Mr Quick’s former colleague, Neil Lewis had no reason to retain confidential information and even less reason to publicise it unless it was to serve up that dish.
They very clearly do. This information about Mr Green (whether it’s true or not) was gathered during a highly contentious raid on his office in Parliament. The enquiry which prompted the raid was into allegations of leaks of information from the Home Office. Mr Green had been Shadow Home Secretary during the period of the allegations and the Met’s Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick decided to arrest him (though interestingly chose not to arrest or even interview Jacqui Smith, the Labour Home Secretary at the time who may have been in a better position to leak information). The information about the contents of Mr Green’s computer played no part in the subject of that enquiry. Now, nine years on, a former police officer involved in the matter discloses his notes which he made at the time. I can think of no other reason for him (a) to retain such notes personally or (b) to make them public other than to pursue a vendetta against senior Tory figures.
The Metropolitan Police (and in particular former AC Quick) have a good reason to feel aggrieved. Among the alleged leaks said to have taken place was the publication of Mr Quick’s home address. But during the enquiries it transpired that Mrs Quick was running a car hire business from their address and it was published online for all to see. Mr Quick then accused the Tories of being “wholly corrupt”. Mr Green was cleared of any wrongdoing and the incident cost AC Quick his career (his demise somewhat hastened by his walking along Downing Street with a confidential file showing details of a counter-terrorism operation on plain view).
They say that revenge is a dish best served cold and Mr Quick’s former colleague, Neil Lewis had no reason to retain confidential information and even less reason to publicise it unless it was to serve up that dish.
I don't believe he should be sacked, because he has not been proven to have done anything wrong.
However, serious questions should be asked about his judgement in allowing himself to be put in this position.
My work PC has a screen lock on it than can be set to shut down access after a pre-set time, starting at one minute, when the keyboard has not been activated. So if I move away from my PC, in theory it cannot be accessed by anyone else because it is password protected.
I find it difficult to imagine that anyone in the Commons who has a PC carrying sensitive information would not have a similar safeguard, and use it, so if Mr Green did not do so, which has left him open to these accusations, then again, his judgement is in serious doubt.
However, serious questions should be asked about his judgement in allowing himself to be put in this position.
My work PC has a screen lock on it than can be set to shut down access after a pre-set time, starting at one minute, when the keyboard has not been activated. So if I move away from my PC, in theory it cannot be accessed by anyone else because it is password protected.
I find it difficult to imagine that anyone in the Commons who has a PC carrying sensitive information would not have a similar safeguard, and use it, so if Mr Green did not do so, which has left him open to these accusations, then again, his judgement is in serious doubt.
A-H. Windows key - 'l' locks it immediately which you should do all the time.
This was 2009 though and security was not as tight as it is today coupled with the fact it would not have been difficult to falsify the file storage - if you had a mind to do it.
What is really worrying is that Government computers appeared to be able to access anything on the internet. That is wrong and I hope it is not the case today.
This was 2009 though and security was not as tight as it is today coupled with the fact it would not have been difficult to falsify the file storage - if you had a mind to do it.
What is really worrying is that Government computers appeared to be able to access anything on the internet. That is wrong and I hope it is not the case today.
// (though interestingly chose not to arrest or even interview Jacqui Smith, the Labour Home Secretary at the time who may have been in a better position to leak information) //
What kind of idiocy is that? The information that was leaked was embarrassing to the Home Scretary, she didn’t want it revealed, she wanted to bury it.
What kind of idiocy is that? The information that was leaked was embarrassing to the Home Scretary, she didn’t want it revealed, she wanted to bury it.
Latest Posts
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank34 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News40 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.