[Closed] Damian Green and the left handed websites

I do wonder if any of his downloads contained images of kicking Tramps or live Beastialty ...

Cameron preferred his pigs dead.

1. MPs are not employees.
2. This evidence was secured in a raid on an MP's office than should never have been taken place.
3. Why are the police keeping records of perfectly legal activity when no charge was made.
4. Why are former Police Officers breaching their duty of confidentiality.

I don't think the conduct of Damian Green is the big issue here.

I don't think the conduct of Damian Green is the big issue here.

[i]A Cabinet Office inquiry, set up last month to investigate allegations that the 61-year-old had made inappropriate advances to a political activist, Kate Maltby, is also examining the pornography claims.[/i]

oh, I think it might be.

Why are former Police Officers breaching their duty of confidentiality.

quite so, [i]On Tuesday, Scotland Yard confirmed its department for professional standards was examining allegations that Mr Lewis had disclosed confidential information.
A statement from the Metropolitan Police said: "Confidential information gathered during a police inquiry should not be made public."[/i]

But let's be clear, the cop

Got to agree with mefty here.

If a police officer has come across evidence (of what, I’m not sure, I don’t think anyone has said any of the content is illegal?) then it can only be used in connection with police work. Not for bedtime stories in retirement.

The very least that should be happening here is for the Police officer to be arrested.

Rachel

it might be circumstantial but the investigation is towards inappropriate conduct and advances made which he's denied. He also denied the porn, but it seems that he might have been lying (it's still a he said / no he said currently) granted. Is establishing the fact that he (may be) a blatant liar a valid factor in the other he said / she said investigation?

[edit] to those commenting on the policeman's part in it - he is backing up an (ex-) colleague wrt a previous investigation, which appears to have been somewhat covered up.

BBC website: "The pornography allegations were first alluded to by Bob Quick, a former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, in written evidence to a Parliamentary committee in 2009.
He said the discovery of "private material" on Mr Green's office computer had "complicated" the inquiry into Home Office leaks.

In 2011, Mr Quick expanded on the matter in a draft statement for the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics, but it was removed from the final version, only to resurface last month in a Sunday Times article.
Mr Green responded to Mr Quick's assertions by accusing him of spreading "disreputable political smears", an attack that so infuriated Mr Lewis that he approached the former counter-terrorism chief to offer his support"

Neither Quick nor Lewis made the recent allegations beyond that which was made to the committee and then edited out, it was a newspaper that got hold of it, Green then denied it and now Lewis is questioning that denial, which may or may not be material to other denials Green is currently making.

The MPs' code of conduct states members should always behave with "probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources".

Members are personally responsible and accountable for ensuring that their use of any expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters. [b]Members shall ensure that their use of public resources is always in support of their parliamentary duties.[/b] It should not confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else, or confer undue advantage on a political organisation

[url= https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmcode/1076/1076.pdf ]Sauce[/url]

Three key questions arise for me:

1 - Why aren't these websites blocked in parliament, given porn sites quite often carry malicious code and are a fairly blatent security risk

2 - Why is a Member of flippin Parliament so stupid as to do it at work, on a work computer?

3 - What's the copper doing talking to the news, keeping notebooks after he leaves the force and all that? I hope he is in for a bit of bother with his former employers. Mefty +1

re 3: also from the BBC website

"On Tuesday, Scotland Yard confirmed its department for professional standards was examining allegations that Mr Lewis had disclosed confidential information.
A statement from the Metropolitan Police said: "Confidential information gathered during a police inquiry should not be made public."

I'm sure he (Lewis) knows what he is doing may be questionable, but obviously is doing so for some (in his mind) good reason. I'm sure he'd say it's to back up a colleague / expose Green as a liar which may be material in his other denials, but I'm not naive enough to think it's not potentially political.

1. MPs are not employees.

No, but they are public servants and are bound by the code of conduct, which, if these allegations are true, Green appears to have breached

2. This evidence was secured in a raid on an MP's office than should never have been taken place.

That doesn't stop it being true and is therefore not relevant to this debate.

3. Why are the police keeping records of perfectly legal activity when no charge was made.

I've not seen any evidence that they have. On the contrary, the guy who's blabbed today is an ex-officer who admitted keeping a notebook (and who is currently under investigation for his possible breaches in doing that and in the disclosures he's made). He's also explicitly said that he was ordered to destroy said records (the hard drive images) and although he's admitted that he ensured a sneaky copy was taken, he believes that this has subsequently also been destroyed.

If you have evidence that the police have kept records as you state, that's something new that isn't in the public domain as far as I can tell, so I suggest you report said evidence to the relevant authorities (unless of course you just totally made that up to make a point, in which case, you sad ****)

4. Why are former Police Officers breaching their duty of confidentiality.

He's publically said why, can't you read the news yourself? To recap, according to Lewis it is in response to Bob Quick (his former boss) being accused of "smearing" Green with false allegations that he (Lewis) knows to be true. Side note: Bob Quick originally alluded to these in evidence given to a parliamentary committee so I don't think he's on the hook for any inappropriate conduct there?

I don't think the conduct of Damian Green is the big issue here.

It clearly is. Whether his alleged porn habits are is a different matter - some might think that the allegations of inappropriate conduct towards a political activist are more important. I'm inclined to agree with that.

The very least that should be happening here is for the Police officer to be arrested.

That seems to be getting slightly ahead of proceedings. There should be an investigation (which sounds like there is) into how this information came to light and whether it's been handled inappropriately and if theres a case to be answered then arrests should be made.

But the question of how a member of parliament spends their time whilst they are supposed to be working for the good of their constituents is still relevant. Whilst this information shouldn't necessarily have been made public there surely must be some person or body that overseas whether MP's are acting appropriately in the workplace and assuming that body would have had this information prior to it's public release then he should have been dealt with a long time ago.

I'm not suggesting that Green should face any criminal charges, and had this all have been on a home computer and on his own time then I'm pretty sure I'd be defending his position. But this was government equipment on government time and for that reason i think he falls below the standards that I'd expect of pretty much anyone in the workplace let alone a member of parliament.

oh, I think it might be.

Not really sure the relevance of this episode to that inquiry.

The MPs' code of conduct states members should always behave with "probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources".

Those rules were not in effect when it happened, you need to look at the rules then in force, which may still cover it, but there has been a lot of movement in this area.

MPs are independent, parliament provides the equipment to help them carry out their duties, MPs conduct can be investigated by others MPs and suspension occasionally happens, but the only people who can get rid of an MP is the electorate.

Good article about it [url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/01/damian-green-porn-work-police-mp ]here[/url]

Not really sure the relevance of this episode to that inquiry.

you can't think that there might be in any way a link between a really enormous porn habit and the alleged sexual molestation of a female political activist?

🙄 uh huh...

you can't think that there might be in any way a link between a really enormous porn habit and the alleged sexual molestation of a female political activist?

I'd have thought it would be a cast iron defence - "I couldn't possibly have molested anyone milord, I'd just had 5 ****s."

Green is on the hook - and wriggling.
Quick & Lewis will not to be prosecuted; acting in the public interest will be a major consideration - and they have.
There has been no denial that porn had been viewed on Green's computer and that there were thousands of porn thumbnails on the hard disk.
Green has denied that he viewed porn on his office computer.
If we believe his denial, who else had access to his computer.
If he's lying he's in shit and should be sacked.
If he's not lying then he's incompetent for allowing others access to his computer; that would be a red flag about his suitability as de facto deputy PM.
Another example of piss poor standards and controls in parliament.

Ctrl+shift+N

What does that do? A friend of mine wants to know...

Loling at OOB... 😆

At the end of the day if he wants to rough up the prime suspect in his own time, then fine.

If he wants to do it while at work, then you'd expect that his employers (us) are going to take a pretty dim view of it

Good article about it here

He's not wrong, but I guess Green's browsing habits would have stayed secret if those other accusations hadn't just been made against him.

Got to wonder what was really at the bottom of the original investigation anyway. Anyone who's watched Yes Minister knows leaking is part of life in politics - so did somebody [i]really [/i]over-do it?

Those rules were not in effect when it happened, you need to look at the rules then in force, which may still cover it, but there has been a lot of movement in this area.

"which may still cover it?" - perhaps your point would make more sense if you made the effort to find out?

Anyhow, the prevailing version was passed in 2005:

RESOLUTION OF 13 JULY 2005: STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

"That this House takes note of the Fourth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2004-05 (House of Commons Paper No. 472), and approves the revised Code of Conduct set out in the Annex to the Report."

[url= https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188508.htm#a60 ]sauce[/url]

..the Annex in question containing this:

14. Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, [b]facilities[/b] and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services.

[url= https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmstnprv/472/47204.htm#a12 ]sauce[/url]

Now here, admittedly the trail goes slightly cold - the oldest version of the acceptable use policy I can find is from 2010. However, I can't find any record of substantive revision to it between 2008 and 2010 so I'm going to have a punt on it being to all intents and purposes valid for the period in question. From page 12 of this

[url= https://www.parliament.uk/documents/foi/members-handbook.pdf ]https://www.parliament.uk/documents/foi/members-handbook.pdf[/url]

You must not upload, download, use, retain, distribute, create or access any electronic materials including emails, documents, images, text or software which:
...
Could be .. indecent, obscene..

TBH i think it would fall under the so obvious we did not need to tell you.
For example my contract does not prevent me beating people up it also does not say I cannot bring a knife into work and kidnap the admin staff and ransom them into slavery...no one needs to be told this just like they dont need to be told to not **** off at work to porn they just watched at their desk.

I don't think the conduct of Damian Green is the big issue here.

if you cannot see this its because you are either such a rabbid tory hater, or lover, that your eyes are blind to facts.
Always amazes me how loyal some folk [ both sides] are to their wing of politics. Its like right and wrong dont apply in politics

the only people who can get rid of an MP is the electorate.

It's been reported on R4 that David Davis has 'threatened to resign' if Green is sacked.
Two for the price of one!

So, at this point, if what Lewis has said is true, that the porn was looked at on his (IT) account, imo Green's in the shit regardless:

If he was looking at porn then he's breached the AUP and lied about it - in the shit.

If he allowed someone else to use his user account, then he's in the shit for that instead.

Either way, bye bye.

Quick & Lewis will not to be prosecuted; acting in the public interest will be a major consideration - and they have.

Possibly right on the disclosures - I think Lewis could be in a spot of bother for retaining one of his notebooks though, that's very naughty.

Did Green leak in his private office?

Former director of professional standards at the Met has said he cannot see any circumstances under which Lewis could be prosecuted; my earlier post re acting in the public interest refers.
Crispin Blunt was wheeled out earlier to say Green is an honourable man, wouldn't have had time to look at 'social' websites; then said that Quick was good as a senior copper in Surrey but may have been out of his depth at the Met.
Forget the facts - let's just go for character assassination.

Harry - not if you believe him; if it was someone else why didn't Green see the scrunched up tissues in his bin or notice the stains on his axminster?

Or indeed the unexplained stains on the curtains?

What is Ctrl+shift+N?

Seriously.

EDIT: Don't answer. I just looked it up. It's amazing what you can do nowadays!

And what does "download" mean in this instance?

the cop has said there are "thousands" of downloaded images

Does it just mean that the stuff was once viewed and now resides in the cache? Or does it mean he actually, actively saved what he was looking at to his hard drive?

think if you only focus on the actions of one side

Green is being investigated for sexual harassment, that is obviously serious but I don't see the porn as particularly useful evidence, my understanding is that there is a strong correlation between looking at porn and the incidence of boring conference calls.

However, the conduct of various (former) members of the Met in this episode which started off with an outrageous use of police powers shows scant regard for the civil liberties and a high regard for looking after their own. When I consider the Met's conduct during plebgate as well and my own experiences, I don't have much faith in the Met. I should add when someone in a pretty comfortable position like myself loses faith in the police, they have pretty fundamental problems.

Forget the facts - let's just go for character assassination.

Mefty I still think you are being incredibly generous to one side and incredibly harsh to another.. I cannot imagine you being this kind if it was say Corbyn who had been caught this way

I do agree the MET leak is not good form nor was plebgate* but neither is sufficient for us to ignore the fact he had a shit load of porn on his work computer...if you can believe a copper these days and this is where the real problem lies **
* if they would set him up little people are in real trouble
** see what i did there

Will he get in trouble for not updating the register of (ahem) [i]members' interests[/i]?

Green is being investigated for sexual harassment, that is obviously serious but I don't see the porn as particularly useful evidence

how about if the sexual harassment turned out to be Green offering to show her "his collection"? would it be relevant then?

Or

She walks into his office, and he's watching one of "his collection" and he just leaves it there, running in the background...

Or,

He points to the laptop and asks if she's seen any...

C'mon it's bloody endless... Of course it's relevant, you'd have to dumb to not think the two might be linked in some way.

Will he get in trouble for not updating the register of (ahem) members' interests?

😀

I wouldn't even draw that correlation. He has flatly denied the sexual misconduct allegation, just as he flatly denies the porn allegation. Frankly, I don't really mind if he was surfing porn or overengineered gnar-chariots on a specialist interest bike website, to me it's the fact he is (allegedly) lying about one and that therefore calls into account whether you believe him on the other. And if he's lying about the other that's a serious misconduct that makes him unfit for public office.

It's not the guilt or otherwise of some (entirely legal) e-grumble, it's whether you can trust him to tell the truth.

frankconway - Member
It's been reported on R4 that David Davis has 'threatened to resign' if Green is sacked.
Two for the price of one

Ha! We’d be so lucky !!

The factor here is [i]who believes anything David Davis says[/i]?

Not I ...

With a woman in the possession of Black Rod for the first time ever too. The mind boggles...

it's whether you can trust him to tell the truth.

If that was the criteria for expulsion the commons would be down to double figures.

I struggle to understand how anyone, whatever job they hold (assuming not in the sex industry), who has been shown to have been looking at porn in work time would not be sacked on the spot.

The nature of it being revealed is a bit strange but doesn't diminish the fact.

Crispin Blunt was wheeled out earlier to say Green is an honourable man, wouldn't have had time to look at 'social' websites;

Is that who I heard on the radio earlier? He referred to them as "leisure websites", which made me laugh, and I forget the exact wording but he implied that Green must be innocent because Tory MPs don't do that sort of thing, which almost made me crash the car.

Anyway,

It's his own fault for not replacing his computer. He should've splashed out on a new one.

He should've splashed out on a new one.

8)