Off Topic The Politics Thread

[sb_73]

No criminal charges re Green, so presumably an employment matter and being civil, the test whether he is responsible is balance of probabilities. It sounds to me from what I've heard is that would be met. If his pc was being used to access porn (which apparently was quite extreme, and some of which would be illegal now but was not at the time) and he was sending emails intermittently between porn viewings - then it probably was him, unless Green can provide compelling evidence to the contrary.

I can't get very excited about this (unlike Mr Green who presumably go quite excited). The coppers say they would have been sacked for doing something similar. If Green has breached Parliamentary standards, he has to go.

DUP seem to be sabre rattling, to match the veto-threat from the south. I expect agreement will be reached eventually.

I’m enjoying the toe curling embarrassment, the idea of him discussing this with his boss the vicar’s daughter.

Don’t underestimate the ability and will if the unionists to **** things up. But hopefully the combined pressure of U.K. government, Ireland, the EU and their own remainder electorate will force them into line. Certainly will get interesting if it is only them preventing a deal from being done.

 

[Stroller]

Not sure why this bloke would lie about what he found, so that suggests that Green is lying.

You must log in or register to see media

I don't really care about him watching porn, but if he's lying about this (and also about making sexual advances towards a Tory activist whilst offering her a job) he's going to have to go.

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

GIGN and Operaciones Especiales sort of have Europe covered IMO if we are talking elite units
No of us know anything about the SAS or any of them IMO ... nor should we
I would imagine all the world's units will continue to work together regardless of governments.
Reputation of any unit is only worth anything to people who believe the crap written
People who also believe the hype of the last two world wars and have based their beliefs on that ... perfectly respected but necessarily factually correct IMO

 

[ELLERS]

Not sure why this bloke would lie about what he found, so that suggests that Green is lying.

You must log in or register to see media

I don't really care about him watching porn, but if he's lying about this (and also about making sexual advances towards a Tory activist whilst offering her a job) he's going to have to go.

Stroller you would have loved the Sky interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg. They were discussing Green and porn found on his PC. The sky presenter asked him if MP's should be sacked for having porn on their PC. His face was a picture, he looked so disgusted and stuttered in his words referring to it as having 'dirty pictures'. he was so uncomfortable discussing it. Straight out of a Dickens novel!

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Not sure why this bloke would lie about what he found, so that suggests that Green is lying.

You must log in or register to see media

I don't really care about him watching porn, but if he's lying about this (and also about making sexual advances towards a Tory activist whilst offering her a job) he's going to have to go.

I agree about disregarding the porn bit, although technically, if he breaches the ministerial code, he has to go. On the question of technicalities, in the interview given by Rees-Mogg on Sky to which Ellers refers, R-M was arguing that the evidence of porn came as a result of an illegal raid by the police on a party in opposition ordered by the last Labour government. The police were acting as political porns, sorry pawns, instead of maintaining their independence, and have since breached duties of confidentiality. R-M's contention is that any use of evidence gained illegally should not be used in the current inquiry into Green, since if would be a breach of natural justice. I don't know whether all this is R-M flying a kite, or whether there are genuine legal grounds for challenging any conclusion the inquiry reaches, if it takes into account police evidence from the raid.

On the Kate Maltby matter, Green may have been making obtuse sexual advances - consisting of briefly touching her knee and inviting her for a drink in an email . He wasn't offering her a job so far as I'm aware but he did suggest he could assist her in her interest in Tory activism. Is there an abuse of power here? In the absence of any more evidence, I'd suggest not.

 

[sb_73]

I agree about disregarding the porn bit, although technically, if he breaches the ministerial code, he has to go. On the question of technicalities, in the interview given by Rees-Mogg on Sky to which Ellers refers, R-M was arguing that the evidence of porn came as a result of an illegal raid by the police on a party in opposition ordered by the last Labour government. The police were acting as political porns, sorry pawns, instead of maintaining their independence, and have since breached duties of confidentiality. R-M's contention is that any use of evidence gained illegally should not be used in the current inquiry into Green, since if would be a breach of natural justice. I don't know whether all this is R-M flying a kite, or whether there are genuine legal grounds for challenging any conclusion the inquiry reaches, if it takes into account police evidence from the raid.

On the Kate Maltby matter, Green may have been making obtuse sexual advances - consisting of briefly touching her knee and inviting her for a drink in an email . He wasn't offering her a job so far as I'm aware but he did suggest he could assist her in her interest in Tory activism. Is there an abuse of power here? In the absence of any more evidence, I'd suggest not.

I think the error Catholic Jake is making is to think of this as a legal or procedural matter. He may well be right about illegally obtained evidence etc, but the Daily Mail reader is interested in whether Damian is a porn addict and the rest of us should be interested in whether he is a liar (on this specific subject - as a professional politician we can assume him to be a liar in general). The people in the Westminster bubble forget the real world, they think the inquiry is the important thing, whereas it’s actually the perception of Joe and Josephine Public.

Green could save a bit of face by resigning now while still claiming innocence on the ‘distraction from the important work of government’ story. He’s a laughing stock already it’s only going to get my re uncomfortable for him.

 

[Stroller]

I think the error Catholic Jake is making is to think of this as a legal or procedural matter. He may well be right about illegally obtained evidence etc, but the Daily Mail reader is interested in whether Damian is a porn addict and the rest of us should be interested in whether he is a liar (on this specific subject - as a professional politician we can assume him to be a liar in general). The people in the Westminster bubble forget the real world, they think the inquiry is the important thing, whereas it’s actually the perception of Joe and Josephine Public.

Green could save a bit of face by resigning now while still claiming innocence on the ‘distraction from the important work of government’ story. He’s a laughing stock already it’s only going to get my re uncomfortable for him.

Apparently David Davis has warned May not to sack Green. Bizarre.

 

[ELLERS]

Apparently David Davis has warned May not to sack Green. Bizarre.

mmm maybe he is looking for an excuse to resign?

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I think the error Catholic Jake is making is to think of this as a legal or procedural matter. He may well be right about illegally obtained evidence etc, but the Daily Mail reader is interested in whether Damian is a porn addict and the rest of us should be interested in whether he is a liar (on this specific subject - as a professional politician we can assume him to be a liar in general). The people in the Westminster bubble forget the real world, they think the inquiry is the important thing, whereas it’s actually the perception of Joe and Josephine Public.

Green could save a bit of face by resigning now while still claiming innocence on the ‘distraction from the important work of government’ story. He’s a laughing stock already it’s only going to get my re uncomfortable for him.

It's an interesting question. There's some suggestion now that the police were exaggerating when they described the porn as extreme but legal. The photographs may just have been moderate, presumably nudity, simulated sex etc. There's no question but that it was legal and the police way exceeded their brief by going into Green's pc.

I can't speak for the average Daily Mail reader but I don't sense that the public are particularly bothered by the morality of someone peeking at soft internet porn, and I don't sense that Green is a laughing stock, although clearly his stature at the moment has been greatly reduced. Of course, there's the issue of carrying this out on a work pc's. Given that MP's can work through until midnight, eating into home life, that might afford some sort of mitigation.

Does the poor behaviour of the police - exceeding the authority of what was a draconian search anyway, ordered by a government against the opposition - together with flagrant breach of confidences now, impact upon those inquiring into Green's claims that he know nothing about the porn photos? I begin to think it would. I think, given the suspect political backdrop, the inquiry may give Green the benefit of the doubt.

 

[sb_73]

mmm maybe he is looking for an excuse to resign?

Would be true to form for David ‘the Quitter’ Davies.

 

[sb_73]

It's an interesting question. There's some suggestion now that the police were exaggerating when they described the porn as extreme but legal. The photographs may just have been moderate, presumably nudity, simulated sex etc. There's no question but that it was legal and the police way exceeded their brief by going into Green's pc.

I can't speak for the average Daily Mail reader but I don't sense that the public are particularly bothered by the morality of someone peeking at soft internet porn, and I don't sense that Green is a laughing stock, although clearly his stature at the moment has been greatly reduced. Of course, there's the issue of carrying this out on a work pc's. Given that MP's can work through until midnight, eating into home life, that might afford some sort of mitigation.

Does the poor behaviour of the police - exceeding the authority of what was a draconian search anyway, ordered by a government against the opposition - together with flagrant breach of confidences now, impact upon those inquiring into Green's claims that he know nothing about the porn photos? I begin to think it would. I think, given the suspect political backdrop, the inquiry may give Green the benefit of the doubt.

I didn’t make my point clearly enough. You can go into the legal, who had what authority, were the police out of order, the inquiry should do x or y stuff, and all the points could be valid but the public see Green as a bloke who sits staring at porn while he should be working and then lies about it. They might not care about the porn, they may not be surprised by the lying, but they aren’t going to take him seriously and he will be mocked endlessly in the House. Thornberry, (not one of my favourite people) made a good start on this at PMQs simply by saying ‘I’m not going to ask about that ‘ and watching him squirm. And the media will be worse.

Whether I think they are competent or not this government has a serious job to do and doesn’t need this type of sideshow. It will soon morph into questions about May’s leadership (as if we don’t know enough about that already) if the porngate boil isn’t lanced soon.

 

[Stroller]

It's an interesting question. There's some suggestion now that the police were exaggerating when they described the porn as extreme but legal. The photographs may just have been moderate, presumably nudity, simulated sex etc. There's no question but that it was legal and the police way exceeded their brief by going into Green's pc.

I can't speak for the average Daily Mail reader but I don't sense that the public are particularly bothered by the morality of someone peeking at soft internet porn, and I don't sense that Green is a laughing stock, although clearly his stature at the moment has been greatly reduced. Of course, there's the issue of carrying this out on a work pc's. Given that MP's can work through until midnight, eating into home life, that might afford some sort of mitigation.

Does the poor behaviour of the police - exceeding the authority of what was a draconian search anyway, ordered by a government against the opposition - together with flagrant breach of confidences now, impact upon those inquiring into Green's claims that he know nothing about the porn photos? I begin to think it would. I think, given the suspect political backdrop, the inquiry may give Green the benefit of the doubt.

Does any of that matter? He's been caught out being a naughty boy and is lying to try and save his own skin. That, plus the sexual harassment stuff, is enough to do for him.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I didn’t make my point clearly enough. You can go into the legal, who had what authority, were the police out of order, the inquiry should do x or y stuff, and all the points could be valid but the public see Green as a bloke who sits staring at porn while he should be working and then lies about it. They might not care about the porn, they may not be surprised by the lying, but they aren’t going to take him seriously and he will be mocked endlessly in the House. Thornberry, (not one of my favourite people) made a good start on this at PMQs simply by saying ‘I’m not going to ask about that ‘ and watching him squirm. And the media will be worse.

Whether I think they are competent or not this government has a serious job to do and doesn’t need this type of sideshow. It will soon morph into questions about May’s leadership (as if we don’t know enough about that already) if the porngate boil isn’t lanced soon.

The point I'm making is that if the Inquiry finds that nothing has been proved against him - for the reasons I gave in my earlier post - then the likes of Emily Thornberry will find themselves in deep **** if they try to make reference to it going forward.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Does any of that matter? He's been caught out being a naughty boy and is lying to try and save his own skin. That, plus the sexual harassment stuff, is enough to do for him.

He hasn't been caught out - there's an enquiry and we should not prejudge it.

I answered the point about sexual harrassment in my last post to you, and you've ignored it!

 

[QPR Oslo]

Does any of that matter? He's been caught out being a naughty boy and is lying to try and save his own skin. That, plus the sexual harassment stuff, is enough to do for him.

Do you or does anyone know he is lying etc? Could be the ex officer is. My point is I don't think all this sh*te should be clogging up news media before anything is proved one way or the other. Especially on the day of Carl Sergeant's funeral.

 

[Stroller]

He hasn't been caught out - there's an enquiry and we should not prejudge it.

I answered the point about sexual harrassment in my last post to you, and you've ignored it!

It's not a court of law, Goldie, it's the court of public opinion. I now see him as someone who sits at his desk ****ing over internet porn (or worse, his friend's daughter in a corset). He's also a liar (allegedly).

Guilty!

 

[Stroller]

Do you or does anyone know he is lying etc? Could be the ex officer is. My point is I don't think all this sh*te should be clogging up news media before anything is proved one way or the other. Especially on the day of Carl Sergeant's funeral.

We don't if the policeman is lying or not, but I don't see why he would. It seems pretty clear to me that Kate Maltby isn't lying.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

It's not a court of law, Goldie, it's the court of public opinion. I now see him as someone who sits at his desk ****ing over internet porn (or worse, his friend's daughter in a corset). He's also a liar (alledgedly).

Guilty!

I wonder. If he denied embezzling money and lied - the public would condemn him. If he's caught cheating on expenses - the public would condemn him. If he beat his wife - the public would condemn him.

If he's accused of looking at soft porn during a long working day - found not guilty in an inquiry but still the public have their suspicions - will the public condemn him for lying, or say "hell, we're all human - if I was accused of looking at perfectly legal porn, I'd ****ing deny it!"

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

We don't if the policeman is lying or not, but I don't see why he would. It seems pretty clear to me that Kate Maltby isn't lying.

What's her complaint? A touch on the knee and an email inviting her for a drink?

 

[Stroller]

What's her complaint? A touch on the knee and an email inviting her for a drink?

I think the creepy bit (which you omit to mention) is that he refers to admiring a picture of her in a corset before inviting her for a drink.