411 Seats Still Not Enough Talent It...
News0 min 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.
According to the Independent Apr 12, 2017 - Nine out of 10 schoolchildren have watched pornography online new research suggests.
It doesn't say how many adults have, but I would suggest quite a few - all except mikey of course.
I have seen a lot of what would be called 'pornographic images', there's some amazing, and very rude, 18th century Japanese prints you wouldn't want to show your maiden aunt.
I also suggest the finger-waggers lighten up a bit!
It doesn't say how many adults have, but I would suggest quite a few - all except mikey of course.
I have seen a lot of what would be called 'pornographic images', there's some amazing, and very rude, 18th century Japanese prints you wouldn't want to show your maiden aunt.
I also suggest the finger-waggers lighten up a bit!
NJ
// "Update on computer progress and gave input on pornography and the difficulty on keyword searching scanned documents." //
They were talking about Green’s computer, so ‘gave input on pornography’ seems to confirm they found some, or it wouldn’t be being mentioned.
Scanned documents become photographs in effect instead of the original text. Text keywords are searchable. Finding keywords in a photo was not pissible then, and is still very difficult now. So anyone passing off leaked documents would send them as a jpeg and not a Word file.
// "Update on computer progress and gave input on pornography and the difficulty on keyword searching scanned documents." //
They were talking about Green’s computer, so ‘gave input on pornography’ seems to confirm they found some, or it wouldn’t be being mentioned.
Scanned documents become photographs in effect instead of the original text. Text keywords are searchable. Finding keywords in a photo was not pissible then, and is still very difficult now. So anyone passing off leaked documents would send them as a jpeg and not a Word file.
^ I agree that AOG and others are clutching at straws. It takes a serious stretch of the imagination to believe he is not guilty. We are not talking of just a few images, as I understand it there were thousands of them down loaded over a considerable time not just a one off. As it seems he did not bother to delete his browsing history it is going to come out sooner or later.
Eddie - // It takes a serious stretch of the imagination to believe he is not guilty. //
I entirely agree, but knowing something, and proving it, are two different things.
I do think Mr green is guilty of serious misjudgement, but that is not a legal matter, and may still have repercussions for him.
I entirely agree, but knowing something, and proving it, are two different things.
I do think Mr green is guilty of serious misjudgement, but that is not a legal matter, and may still have repercussions for him.
^ Yes, but at any other time he would have been out on his arris long before now.
As said, Mrs May simply can't fire him without getting the boot herself. There are already over 40 Tory MP's willing to sign a vote of no confidence , sacking one of her most loyal,long serving and trusted ministers, would add enough to get the 49 needed for a vote of no confidence.
As said, Mrs May simply can't fire him without getting the boot herself. There are already over 40 Tory MP's willing to sign a vote of no confidence , sacking one of her most loyal,long serving and trusted ministers, would add enough to get the 49 needed for a vote of no confidence.
Eddie - it may be that Mrs May is reluctant to sack Mr Green for the reasons you have outlined, but only she knows if that's true.
Personally, and I wish to clarify my earlier position here - I would not dismiss him for the fact that pornography was found on his computer - since that is not proved, but I would dismiss him for the lack of judgement that has allowed suspicion to fall on him in the way that it has.
As a government minister, he should be well beyond this type of suspicion.
Personally, and I wish to clarify my earlier position here - I would not dismiss him for the fact that pornography was found on his computer - since that is not proved, but I would dismiss him for the lack of judgement that has allowed suspicion to fall on him in the way that it has.
As a government minister, he should be well beyond this type of suspicion.
“They were talking about Green’s computer, so ‘gave input on pornography’ seems to confirm they found some, or it wouldn’t be being mentioned.”
Good job you’re not a jury member or a magistrate then, Gromit. “Gave input on pornography” does not by any means show they found some. It could mean “You asked me to look for pornography and my update on that question is that I found none”. It could mean any one of a number of things. The phrase in isolation is meaningless yet it is portrayed to "...show how pornography was found on the computer"
However, my concern is not whether Mr Green did or did not view pornography on his computer. My concern is that a retired police officer feels free to divulge confidential information gathered during the course of an investigation entirely unrelated to the matter in hand. Tellingly, a couple of senior figures in the police seem to be in agreement.
Sir Peter Fahy, ex-chief constable of Greater Manchester, said it was vital police were "…not involved in politics. Ex-detectives who disclosed that legal pornography was found on Damian Green's office computer are in "dangerous territory. It is very dangerous for a police officer to be making judgements about whether a politician is lying or not. That should only happen in a criminal investigation, and even then, ultimately it is for a court to decide."
More tellingly than that, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Thomas Winsor, has weighed in during the last hour. He said this:
“The police's special powers were inseparable from "obligations of special trust. This trust required every officer "to respect and keep confidential information which they obtain in the course of their duties, and which is irrelevant to their inquiries and discloses no criminal conduct". If a police officer broke that trust whilst serving as a police officer, he or she would face disciplinary action and could be dismissed. In certain circumstances, such action could also constitute a criminal offence. The obligation was enduring and "does not end" when a police officer retires, he said.
This enquiry is not one of criminality and does not involve the police (least of all retired officers). It is an internal enquiry into the behaviour of a politician and no criminality is alleged. As the Chief Inspector has said, the police are in a privileged position and gather information not available to Joe Public. I really hope this matter turns round and bites Messrs Lewis and Quick on the Aris, regardless of what happens to Mr Green.
Good job you’re not a jury member or a magistrate then, Gromit. “Gave input on pornography” does not by any means show they found some. It could mean “You asked me to look for pornography and my update on that question is that I found none”. It could mean any one of a number of things. The phrase in isolation is meaningless yet it is portrayed to "...show how pornography was found on the computer"
However, my concern is not whether Mr Green did or did not view pornography on his computer. My concern is that a retired police officer feels free to divulge confidential information gathered during the course of an investigation entirely unrelated to the matter in hand. Tellingly, a couple of senior figures in the police seem to be in agreement.
Sir Peter Fahy, ex-chief constable of Greater Manchester, said it was vital police were "…not involved in politics. Ex-detectives who disclosed that legal pornography was found on Damian Green's office computer are in "dangerous territory. It is very dangerous for a police officer to be making judgements about whether a politician is lying or not. That should only happen in a criminal investigation, and even then, ultimately it is for a court to decide."
More tellingly than that, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Thomas Winsor, has weighed in during the last hour. He said this:
“The police's special powers were inseparable from "obligations of special trust. This trust required every officer "to respect and keep confidential information which they obtain in the course of their duties, and which is irrelevant to their inquiries and discloses no criminal conduct". If a police officer broke that trust whilst serving as a police officer, he or she would face disciplinary action and could be dismissed. In certain circumstances, such action could also constitute a criminal offence. The obligation was enduring and "does not end" when a police officer retires, he said.
This enquiry is not one of criminality and does not involve the police (least of all retired officers). It is an internal enquiry into the behaviour of a politician and no criminality is alleged. As the Chief Inspector has said, the police are in a privileged position and gather information not available to Joe Public. I really hope this matter turns round and bites Messrs Lewis and Quick on the Aris, regardless of what happens to Mr Green.
inextricably mixed up with his normal use of the thing, on a minute by minute basis ? "
Mikey, this may all come down to what his normal use is or was. My impression is that these senior people and ministers have drones (researchers) who do all their clerical stuff. It's also a fact that that most senior people in commerce have similar people using their bosses computers and emails etc on their behalf. My educated guess is that if you asked Damien Green or any other Minister to fish out some facts from a database and present it as a graph they couldn't do it, or if they could it would take them all day.
Most senior people have never had the time to sit for hours at computers, indeed I've known some who never used them at all but just delegated as needed.
Mikey, this may all come down to what his normal use is or was. My impression is that these senior people and ministers have drones (researchers) who do all their clerical stuff. It's also a fact that that most senior people in commerce have similar people using their bosses computers and emails etc on their behalf. My educated guess is that if you asked Damien Green or any other Minister to fish out some facts from a database and present it as a graph they couldn't do it, or if they could it would take them all day.
Most senior people have never had the time to sit for hours at computers, indeed I've known some who never used them at all but just delegated as needed.
// Green could kill this story instantly by issuing a writ for Libel and slander. //
no it is true for chrissakes
altho .... Anthony Blunt was planning to sue Private Eye ( and take them by the privates so to speak ) over whether he was a russian spy and THAT was why Thatcher announced it in the Commons
it is within the law of confidence - and it is OUT !
so whadda they do ? If you give notice then you can get a court order forbidding publication
and the only thing now is that Dame can sue for monetary loss - only he doesnt have any
and YES I thought it was very obvious that officials acting in an official capacity who come by lawful but titillatting wnippets of data are bound to keep quiet about it
and certainly keep off passing opinions on data like - "oh I think it is certain that Damian Greens fingers were at the keyboard altho we dont know"
no it is true for chrissakes
altho .... Anthony Blunt was planning to sue Private Eye ( and take them by the privates so to speak ) over whether he was a russian spy and THAT was why Thatcher announced it in the Commons
it is within the law of confidence - and it is OUT !
so whadda they do ? If you give notice then you can get a court order forbidding publication
and the only thing now is that Dame can sue for monetary loss - only he doesnt have any
and YES I thought it was very obvious that officials acting in an official capacity who come by lawful but titillatting wnippets of data are bound to keep quiet about it
and certainly keep off passing opinions on data like - "oh I think it is certain that Damian Greens fingers were at the keyboard altho we dont know"
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.