Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Irish border issue has the potential to bring down Mrs May

245

Comments

  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    edited December 2017

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    The trouble is that, contrary to what many politicians seem to think, the general public are not stupid and are able to draw their own conclusions. They rightly see that if the police are both arrogant and powerful enough to stitch up cabinet ministers then normal people gave no chance at all. This is a topic of conversation in pubs and workplaces and it all feeds in to a general dissatisfaction with the whole way the police seem to operate today.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    Not to mention the Met plods behaviour about the Tower Hamlets election fraud.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Roger said:

    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    If Charles is around....Any idea what has happened to Medicx fund?

    Don't know MedicX (although think the trust may have a chunky investment... gulp)

    That kind of fund is really a bond like instrument pretending to be equity, so I would assume it's to do with a shift in interest rate expectations.
    It hasn't moved more than one or two % for years and then it drops nearly 10% in a couple of weeks (coinciding with me buying a load!!)


    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vw+casino+ad&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=-BEhWo7SJ8i3gAbQi7zYDQ
    That's because interest rates have been raised. MedicX promised a high but low risk dividend yield without much capital growth. If better yields are available elsewhere then capital value declines

    But I will ask a mate who is close to Assura what is going on
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    The BBC 5 Live interview with Lewis this morning was extraordinary. Prefaced with a load of cod justification for him coming forward and not once was he asked whether any crime had been committed or if it was a police matter.

    None of which means Green is safe, but I was pretty appalled by Lewis and not much less appalled by the interview.

    You'd think twice about reporting a break-in into your car in case they found a copy of the Sun
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    /they worked on a decade ago, in which no charges were brought and where the evidence no longer exists. For political reasons. Don’t police officers sign confidentiality agreements?

    Reading the link, it's clear that Lewis is motivated partly by Green's very personal attack on Quick plus the flat denial of any porn on the systems, both of which looked unwise. *If* Lewis did find what he says, then hearing his former boss attacked as a liar for something he had himself seen would be intolerable. It's obviously possible that he's making it up, but if it's true then I'm not sure that he has a duty to remain silent and let that happen.

    I've nothing against Green, who seems pleasant and competent at his job, and I don't really care if he sometimes looked at legal porn 10 years ago (yes, it shouldn't have happened at work, but not IMO a hanging offence): the political implications are limited since if he quit someone else would take the job and we'd all have forgotten about it next week. But I don't think we know enough to be sure that Lewis is behaving unreasonably. I think the Cabinet Office enquiry should include Lewis in their investigation (which apparently they haven't yet), and then we should all just wait and see the findings.
    Employees are under a duty of confidentiality to their employers. And this duty continues even after they leave in respect of information gained in the course of their employment. A fortiori for information about the details of a police investigation. Revealing confidential information - and the information he has revealed is confidential - is a breach of that duty. Wanting to defend his former boss is not a sufficient justification for doing so. The proper course would be to raise it in private to those doing the inquiry into Mr Green. Not in public. Not to the press.

    This is ABC stuff for investigators. That the police appear to be unaware of these basic rules or willing to ignore them is simply wrong and worrying, given the powers they have.
    There's also the data protection legislation to be considered. This seems to have been breached spectacularly in multiple ways.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    OT but relevant to betting -- porn on Damian Green's machine is back in the news.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42151148

    Edit: Damian Green is 3/1 against with Ladbrokes but odds-on with PP to be next out.

    A bit self incriminating

    * after the force I was ordered to destroy non relevant information but chose not to

    * when I left the force I took a police notebook relating to this politically damaging case

    So hearsay, breach of confidence and relying on stolen evidence. All used to attack a cabinet minister over something that isn't illegal

    Has Lewis potentially committed a crime?
    Certainly breach of confidentiality. Not sure if a crime
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,125

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    I don’t disagree with that. But we now accept, all too readily, that institutions can be institutionally biased and that the bad egg excuse is rarely true. There is truth in that because such inimical attitudes and behaviours rarely come out of the blue but are an exaggeration of the culture in which they are tolerated or thrive.

    This is where we are with the police. It’s sad. Dixon of Dock Green retired a long time ago.
  • Options
    TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    Charles said:

    TonyE said:

    Charles said:

    alex. said:

    What is the DUP’s favoured position/solution to the Irish border question?

    That's a good question. It seems that they don't want a hard border with Eire, but they don't want any differences between mainland Britain and NI. That seems contradictory unless the UK remain in the Customs Union and Single Market, which TM wants to leave.
    It looks like either a massive fudge or a minority Tory government.
    As said previous - a customs union with a customs union

    Choose the key areas (say agriculture). NI sector regs remain aligned with ROI (mechanism is by devolving the power to Stormont rather than by stating that explicitly). Add papers of origin and NI products can freely be sold into EU.

    UK adds a special dispensation saying NI ag products can be sold in the U.K. regardless of reg differences.

    Job done

    It actually doesn't need to do that - it's the EU regs that are very stifling (a form of protectionism). If they just stay within wider intl SPS regs (via Codex), then the UK would never have any problem. The issue would be Mainland exports to NI, where the fear would be about cross border pass through.
    AIUI, UK rules on animal welfare are generally higher than in the rest of the EU (don't eat Danish bacon).

    Papers of origin should cover concern about pass through.
    Yes they are. But the regs are much wider than that - regarding all fresh/packaged/pre cooked foodstuffs, grains & Seeds, pesticides etc. Not just live animal welfare - the complete SPS package is enormous.
  • Options
    It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.
  • Options
    TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    OT but relevant to betting -- porn on Damian Green's machine is back in the news.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42151148

    Edit: Damian Green is 3/1 against with Ladbrokes but odds-on with PP to be next out.

    A bit self incriminating

    * after the force I was ordered to destroy non relevant information but chose not to

    * when I left the force I took a police notebook relating to this politically damaging case

    So hearsay, breach of confidence and relying on stolen evidence. All used to attack a cabinet minister over something that isn't illegal

    Has Lewis potentially committed a crime?
    Certainly breach of confidentiality. Not sure if a crime
    If he has taken evidence in any form, either written or digital, from his time on the case, Theft. I would argue that all notes are able to be called upon by the courts as evidence, and therefore are retained by the Force as such.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,938
    edited December 2017
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    /they worked on a decade ago, in which no charges were brought and where the evidence no longer exists. For political reasons. Don’t police officers sign confidentiality agreements?

    Reading the link, it's clear that Lewis is motivated partly by Green's very personal attack on Quick plus the flat denial of any porn on the systems, both of which looked unwise. *If* Lewis did find what he says, then hearing his former boss attacked as a liar for something he had himself seen would be intolerable. It's obviously possible that he's making it up, but if it's true then I'm not sure that he has a duty to remain silent and let that happen.

    I've nothing against Green, who seems pleasant and competent at his job, and I don't really care if he sometimes looked at legal porn 10 years ago (yes, it shouldn't have happened at work, but not IMO a hanging offence): the political implications are limited since if he quit someone else would take the job and we'd all have forgotten about it next week. But I don't think we know enough to be sure that Lewis is behaving unreasonably. I think the Cabinet Office enquiry should include Lewis in their investigation (which apparently they haven't yet), and then we should all just wait and see the findings.
    Green is one of the more benign of the Cabinet, but didn't this porn allegation arise out of another investigation?

    Surely this is best left to the cabinet office investigation, and not spin by either side? A little bit of due process in order, rather than a social media lynching of either politician or ex policemen?
    I don't care much about Green one way or the other, but the police behaviour is, on the face of it, absolutely unacceptable. To criticise it is not 'social media lynching'.
    Yes, if Green did not break the law as suggested it is a matter for the Cabinet Office, Commons Authorities and the Tory Party and his constituents and not the police.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,918
    HYUFD said:

    PClipp said:

    Sean_F said:

    PClipp said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    FPT:

    I agree that the massive swings to the LibDems in tonight's local by's don't say much about the party's national prospects, but it is nevertheless a comment on the current state of national politics that people are so willing to vote for the party most opposed to the approach the national government is currently taking.
    On topic, the Tories have been party to a disunited kingdom ever since a substantial proportion of them took us down the path toward Brexit.

    And how about last week when the Tories gained a seat and saw votes increase. You also forgot the GE which saw big SNP losses and Tory gains. You also ignore opinion polls which show the Tory vote holding firm despite all the months of bad news and massively negative media coverage. In short a very weak analysis.
    Politics is never simple. But even a modest Lib Dem revival across the south would make the prospects of a Conservative victory much weaker.
    Yes and there is zero sign of it.
    Mr Felix, I suspect you have not spoken to many moderate Conservative voters recently. They are dismayed by the incompetence and extremism of the current crop of Tory leaders, and fearful about the damage being done to the economy.

    Also, of course, the damage being done to local services by the Conservatives` savage attacks on local government and the NHS.
    My impression, based on conversations and on the polling, is that most current Conservative voters are reasonably happy with the government. People who are hostile support Labour.
    Mr Fear, how do you explain last night`s four Lib Dem triumphs in local government elections in different parts of the country? I think you are a bit out-of-date, as the opinion polls are. They adjust the raw figures too much.
    Since June most opinion polls no longer adjust the raw data in the same way they did at the general election.

    LD success is explained partly by NIMBYISM and opposition to local plans not just an anti government protest vote, after all the biggest swing to the LDs last night came when they won a seat off Labour, not one of their gains from the Tories
    I look forward Mr D, to the day you find something amiss with anything Tory!
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    The trouble is that, contrary to what many politicians seem to think, the general public are not stupid and are able to draw their own conclusions. They rightly see that if the police are both arrogant and powerful enough to stitch up cabinet ministers then normal people gave no chance at all. This is a topic of conversation in pubs and workplaces and it all feeds in to a general dissatisfaction with the whole way the police seem to operate today.
    I would say that in my own (quite extensive) dealings with the police, I've found them pretty competent, overall.

    But, there are too many cases of information being leaked just to embarrass people.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,888



    Oh come off it. He's behaving utterly unreasonably.

    Imagine the police investigated you for something, and you were cleared. However, because a policeman does not like you, they leaked embarrassing information about your personal life (*) just because they wanted to get at you. Not illegal behaviour, and nothing to do with the initial investigation, but just leaking sh*t because they can do.

    And yes, it could happen to you, or me. And there's nothing I could do about it because I'm just a pleb.

    The police should not act in this manner. It's levels of wrongness piled up into a massive heap of wrong.

    (*) Not that I'm saying you have anything to hide, but you know what I mean ...

    Yes, I see that, and I think it's peculiar that he kept his notes. But it's part of a series of events. If someone falsely accused a former boss who I liked (I'm not saying this is the case here, but it's possible), I don't think I'd stay silent.

    Like Fox I think we should basically leave it to the Cabinet Office to investigate, as I think Green has asked them to do, and avoid piling in on either Green or his accusers.
    If he thinks his ex-boss has been maligned, and has some evidence that may help, then go to the people investigating. Don't go to the media.

    What he has done is indefensible IMO, and criticising him for it is not 'piling in' on him.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679


    Since June most opinion polls no longer adjust the raw data in the same way they did at the general election.

    LD success is explained partly by NIMBYISM and opposition to local plans not just an anti government protest vote, after all the biggest swing to the LDs last night came when they won a seat off Labour, not one of their gains from the Tories

    I think people either forget / don't know the level of work it takes to win council seats when you're not Lab/Tory in safe Lab/Tory areas. These local wins are all about finding wards taken for granted because they've "always voted x" and just being really proactive there. Voters like feeling cared about, especially with local elections. I wouldn't call this just NIMBYISM (although many LDs trying to get votes of Tories are highlighting the awful top down development rules we have atm) or anti government voting; it's local parties exerting their person power at times the other parties aren't necessarily getting the bump from national political coverage.

    I think LDs currently have a higher percentage of their members being active; post Brexit they've had a members bump, and those members are angry / want to engage. This means, although they're still at some of their lowest national support, the support they do have is doing more.

    I wouldn't take these by-elections to mean much on the national stage, because a) they are local elections, not elections judging the government of the time (arguably what national locals are), and b) we live at a time where we can't say for certain what will even cause the next GE....
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    I don’t disagree with that. But we now accept, all too readily, that institutions can be institutionally biased and that the bad egg excuse is rarely true. There is truth in that because such inimical attitudes and behaviours rarely come out of the blue but are an exaggeration of the culture in which they are tolerated or thrive.

    This is where we are with the police. It’s sad. Dixon of Dock Green retired a long time ago.
    I think the big problem with most institutions is based on a (very human) desire to avoid embarrassment, leading to bad behaviour being covered up.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    The organisations and institutions need in that case to be capable of self-regulation and taking action against crime, corruption and incompetence within their own ranks.

    And in that I don't think there is much faith from outsiders.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658



    Oh come off it. He's behaving utterly unreasonably.

    Imagine the police investigated you for something, and you were cleared. However, because a policeman does not like you, they leaked embarrassing information about your personal life (*) just because they wanted to get at you. Not illegal behaviour, and nothing to do with the initial investigation, but just leaking sh*t because they can do.

    And yes, it could happen to you, or me. And there's nothing I could do about it because I'm just a pleb.

    The police should not act in this manner. It's levels of wrongness piled up into a massive heap of wrong.

    (*) Not that I'm saying you have anything to hide, but you know what I mean ...

    Yes, I see that, and I think it's peculiar that he kept his notes. But it's part of a series of events. If someone falsely accused a former boss who I liked (I'm not saying this is the case here, but it's possible), I don't think I'd stay silent.

    Like Fox I think we should basically leave it to the Cabinet Office to investigate, as I think Green has asked them to do, and avoid piling in on either Green or his accusers.
    If he thinks his ex-boss has been maligned, and has some evidence that may help, then go to the people investigating. Don't go to the media.

    What he has done is indefensible IMO, and criticising him for it is not 'piling in' on him.
    There is also the question of what “his former boss” was doing commenting in the first place, which prompted the “maligning”. It did not on the face of it have anything to do with the allegations made against Green beyond that sexual harassment and pornography both involve sex.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    PClipp said:

    Sean_F said:

    PClipp said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    FPT:

    I agree that the massive swings to the LibDems in tonight's local by's don't say much about the party's national prospects, but it is nevertheless a comment on the current state of national politics that people are so willing to vote for the party most opposed to the approach the national government is currently taking.
    On topic, the Tories have been party to a disunited kingdom ever since a substantial proportion of them took us down the path toward Brexit.

    And how about last week when the Tories gained a seat and saw votes increase. You also forgot the GE which saw big SNP losses and Tory gains. You also ignore opinion polls which show the Tory vote holding firm despite all the months of bad news and massively negative media coverage. In short a very weak analysis.
    Politics is never simple. But even a modest Lib Dem revival across the south would make the prospects of a Conservative victory much weaker.
    Yes and there is zero sign of it.
    Mr Felix, I suspect you have not spoken to many moderate Conservative voters recently. They are dismayed by the incompetence and extremism of the current crop of Tory leaders, and fearful about the damage being done to the economy.

    Also, of course, the damage being done to local services by the Conservatives` savage attacks on local government and the NHS.
    My impression, based on conversations and on the polling, is that most current Conservative voters are reasonably happy with the government. People who are hostile support Labour.
    Mr Fear, how do you explain last night`s four Lib Dem triumphs in local government elections in different parts of the country? I think you are a bit out-of-date, as the opinion polls are. They adjust the raw figures too much.
    The LibDems did really well in the local by-elections in the run up to the 2015 General Election as well...
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    My faith in the police evaporated over many years but was driven by two events primarily - the actions at and subsequent lies over Orgreave and the stitching up of Andrew Mitchell. The fact that the police thought they couldn't should get away with such abuses of their position means that are no longer fit for purpose.
    I agree over the two cases you mention.However I do not agree with you use of the John Reid quote regarding the Police, in most circumstances they do a fantastic job.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    I don’t disagree with that. But we now accept, all too readily, that institutions can be institutionally biased and that the bad egg excuse is rarely true. There is truth in that because such inimical attitudes and behaviours rarely come out of the blue but are an exaggeration of the culture in which they are tolerated or thrive.

    This is where we are with the police. It’s sad. Dixon of Dock Green retired a long time ago.
    I think the big problem with most institutions is based on a (very human) desire to avoid embarrassment, leading to bad behaviour being covered up.
    Added to the culture in many industries, companies and organisations which seek first to punish minor mistakes rather than learn from them.
  • Options

    PClipp said:

    Sean_F said:

    PClipp said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    FPT:

    I agree that the massive swings to the LibDems in tonight's local by's don't say much about the party's national prospects, but it is nevertheless a comment on the current state of national politics that people are so willing to vote for the party most opposed to the approach the national government is currently taking.
    On topic, the Tories have been party to a disunited kingdom ever since a substantial proportion of them took us down the path toward Brexit.

    And how about last week when the Tories gained a seat and saw votes increase. You also forgot the GE which saw big SNP losses and Tory gains. You also ignore opinion polls which show the Tory vote holding firm despite all the months of bad news and massively negative media coverage. In short a very weak analysis.
    Politics is never simple. But even a modest Lib Dem revival across the south would make the prospects of a Conservative victory much weaker.
    Yes and there is zero sign of it.
    Mr Felix, I suspect you have not spoken to many moderate Conservative voters recently. They are dismayed by the incompetence and extremism of the current crop of Tory leaders, and fearful about the damage being done to the economy.

    Also, of course, the damage being done to local services by the Conservatives` savage attacks on local government and the NHS.
    My impression, based on conversations and on the polling, is that most current Conservative voters are reasonably happy with the government. People who are hostile support Labour.
    Mr Fear, how do you explain last night`s four Lib Dem triumphs in local government elections in different parts of the country? I think you are a bit out-of-date, as the opinion polls are. They adjust the raw figures too much.
    The LibDems did really well in the local by-elections in the run up to the 2015 General Election as well...
    Or we could compare Harry Hayfield's local byelection based predictions for the last local elections:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/03/30/looking-forward-to-the-county-council-elections-2017/

    to actual results:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2017
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187

    It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.

    That's odd. I'd have thought the test of the migration stats was simply a comparison between the 2011 Census and 2011 mid year estimate. There must be more to it that than "have we added in enough births/immigrants and taken away enough deaths/emigrants?"
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,388
    edited December 2017

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    My faith in the police evaporated over many years but was driven by two events primarily - the actions at and subsequent lies over Orgreave and the stitching up of Andrew Mitchell. The fact that the police thought they couldn't should get away with such abuses of their position means that are no longer fit for purpose.
    This is not the Met though. It is a couple of retired policemen. Mr Quick, who's reputation was under a cloud when he left, and Neil Lewis.

    The claim "I saw thousands of thumbnails so there must have been thousands of images" sounds like some of the erroneous reasoning from Operation Ore.

    Remember what Sir Paul Stephenson said on this allegation:

    "Referring to the pornography allegations, Stephenson said: “I regret it’s in the public domain. There was no criminality involved, there were no victims, there was no vulnerability and it was not a matter of extraordinary public interest.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/12/ex-scotland-yard-police-chief-knew-of-damian-green-porn-claims
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.

    That's odd. I'd have thought the test of the migration stats was simply a comparison between the 2011 Census and 2011 mid year estimate. There must be more to it that than "have we added in enough births/immigrants and taken away enough deaths/emigrants?"
    I imagine there must be lots of the 'beds in sheds' type immigrants not being picked up on the census.
  • Options
    @stephenkb

    My favourite Westminster Twitter is "Wow, the police are pretty shady!" Twitter.

    @stephenkb

    I look forward to it morphing seamlessly to "we should give them whatever powers they ask for" Twitter in, at best, a week's time.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    I don’t disagree with that. But we now accept, all too readily, that institutions can be institutionally biased and that the bad egg excuse is rarely true. There is truth in that because such inimical attitudes and behaviours rarely come out of the blue but are an exaggeration of the culture in which they are tolerated or thrive.

    This is where we are with the police. It’s sad. Dixon of Dock Green retired a long time ago.
    Anyone who attended a demonstration in the Seventies or Eighties would recognise that George Dixon was a fiction. Another Blair (Blair Peach) springs to mind.

    It certainly sounds as if this ex policeman is in the wrong, but we shouldn't tar his whole profession with the same brush.

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187

    tlg86 said:

    It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.

    That's odd. I'd have thought the test of the migration stats was simply a comparison between the 2011 Census and 2011 mid year estimate. There must be more to it that than "have we added in enough births/immigrants and taken away enough deaths/emigrants?"
    I imagine there must be lots of the 'beds in sheds' type immigrants not being picked up on the census.
    But they estimate for people not counted in the Census. You would not believe how much effort we put in to getting Slough right. But yes, one thing could be that they now think the 2011 Census estimation process didn't add in enough people.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:


    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.

    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    I don’t disagree with that. But we now accept, all too readily, that institutions can be institutionally biased and that the bad egg excuse is rarely true. There is truth in that because such inimical attitudes and behaviours rarely come out of the blue but are an exaggeration of the culture in which they are tolerated or thrive.

    This is where we are with the police. It’s sad. Dixon of Dock Green retired a long time ago.
    Anyone who attended a demonstration in the Seventies or Eighties would recognise that George Dixon was a fiction. Another Blair (Blair Peach) springs to mind.

    It certainly sounds as if this ex policeman is in the wrong, but we shouldn't tar his whole profession with the same brush.

    Perhaps the rest of his profession should be publicly criticizing his behaviour in that case.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    I need to read into a bit more, but the first impressions of the police in how this issue has been strung along are despicable.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842

    tlg86 said:

    It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.

    That's odd. I'd have thought the test of the migration stats was simply a comparison between the 2011 Census and 2011 mid year estimate. There must be more to it that than "have we added in enough births/immigrants and taken away enough deaths/emigrants?"
    I imagine there must be lots of the 'beds in sheds' type immigrants not being picked up on the census.
    Most illegals and overstayers won’t want to fill in the census form (or any other official form for that matter), no matter how many times they’re told the information won’t be shared with the Home Office.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625
    HYUFD said:

    Ironically the DUP propping up a weak Corbyn minority government along with the LDs, SNP, Plaid and Greens with the Tories still the largest party and Corbyn and Starmer having to complete Brexit themselves would probably be excellent news for the Tories poll rating even if it did mean a spell out of government.

    They would also have opposition almost entirely to themselves.

    HYUFD said:

    Ironically the DUP propping up a weak Corbyn minority government along with the LDs, SNP, Plaid and Greens with the Tories still the largest party and Corbyn and Starmer having to complete Brexit themselves would probably be excellent news for the Tories poll rating even if it did mean a spell out of government.

    They would also have opposition almost entirely to themselves.

    Yes, possibly, given how chaotic it would be. However bad for the party longterm though they need to see this through.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.

    That's odd. I'd have thought the test of the migration stats was simply a comparison between the 2011 Census and 2011 mid year estimate. There must be more to it that than "have we added in enough births/immigrants and taken away enough deaths/emigrants?"
    I imagine there must be lots of the 'beds in sheds' type immigrants not being picked up on the census.
    Most illegals and overstayers won’t want to fill in the census form (or any other official form for that matter), no matter how many times they’re told the information won’t be shared with the Home Office.
    After watching this morning's interview with Lewis, who can blame them :)
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.

    That's odd. I'd have thought the test of the migration stats was simply a comparison between the 2011 Census and 2011 mid year estimate. There must be more to it that than "have we added in enough births/immigrants and taken away enough deaths/emigrants?"
    I imagine there must be lots of the 'beds in sheds' type immigrants not being picked up on the census.
    Most illegals and overstayers won’t want to fill in the census form (or any other official form for that matter), no matter how many times they’re told the information won’t be shared with the Home Office.
    After watching this morning's interview with Lewis, who can blame them :)
    I haven't worked for the police, but I trust the ONS a lot more with my information than most other organisations.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    edited December 2017
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ironically the DUP propping up a weak Corbyn minority government along with the LDs, SNP, Plaid and Greens with the Tories still the largest party and Corbyn and Starmer having to complete Brexit themselves would probably be excellent news for the Tories poll rating even if it did mean a spell out of government.

    They would also have opposition almost entirely to themselves.

    Yes, possibly, given how chaotic it would be. However bad for the party longterm though they need to see this through.
    The DUP won't give confidence and supply to Corbyn. That doesn't mean they won't withdraw it from May, ... but he certainly can't command the house with the current numbers. There would have to be fresh elections.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625
    edited December 2017
    Charles said:

    OT but relevant to betting -- porn on Damian Green's machine is back in the news.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42151148

    Edit: Damian Green is 3/1 against with Ladbrokes but odds-on with PP to be next out.

    A bit self incriminating

    * after the force I was ordered to destroy non relevant information but chose not to

    * when I left the force I took a police notebook relating to this politically damaging case

    So hearsay, breach of confidence and relying on stolen evidence. All used to attack a cabinet minister over something that isn't illegal

    Disgusting. Given the stuff with the other officer who had to apologise years ago for lying about being harassed by the tories, it's maddening. If that is the way this went down whatever Green did is minor compared to the disgraceful behaviour, and I dnot initially see a defence, still reading on it. If someone does something wrong it doesn't make someone else doing even more wrong ok.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think it was the cash for honours that first sent a shiver down the spines of ordinary citizens. Specificaly when Tony Blair's secretary had her house raided at 6AM by six policemen with several journalists in attendance. It was the first occasion I remember feeing there was an establishment pulling the strings who considered themselves above our elected politicians.
  • Options
    stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Assuming Jeremy Corbyn would win a general election given that all those older people who abstained in June believing Corbyn was a no hoper and annoyed at the dementia tax would almost certainly turn out in their legions to stop him next year.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.

    That's odd. I'd have thought the test of the migration stats was simply a comparison between the 2011 Census and 2011 mid year estimate. There must be more to it that than "have we added in enough births/immigrants and taken away enough deaths/emigrants?"
    I imagine there must be lots of the 'beds in sheds' type immigrants not being picked up on the census.
    Most illegals and overstayers won’t want to fill in the census form (or any other official form for that matter), no matter how many times they’re told the information won’t be shared with the Home Office.
    After watching this morning's interview with Lewis, who can blame them :)
    Ha, indeed. The fact is though that in a lot of other countries no-one illegally there will ever give their name to anyone official, because deportation will swiftly follow. It’s bloody difficult to get deported from the UK unless you get arrested, and even then you get a free lawyer on legal aid if you want to appeal any decisions. Most other countries put you on a plane first and you can appeal later at your own cost if you want to come back.
  • Options
    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think it was the cash for honours that first sent a shiver down the spines of ordinary citizens. Specificaly when Tony Blair's secretary had her house raided at 6AM by six policemen with several journalists in attendance. It was the first occasion I remember feeing there was an establishment pulling the strings who considered themselves above our elected politicians.
    You really do consistently pick the most entertaining examples of what motivates "ordinary citizens", Roger.
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Does "withdraw support" mean they'd vote against/abstain in a confidence vote, or just that they wouldn't promise not to?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625
    edited December 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    /they worked on a decade ago, in which no charges were brought and where the evidence no longer exists. For political reasons. Don’t police officers sign confidentiality agreements?

    Reading the link, it's clear that Lewis is motivated partly by Green's very personal attack on Quick plus the flat denial of any porn on the systems, both of which looked unwise. *If* Lewis did find what he says, then hearing his former boss attacked as a liar for something he had himself seen would be intolerable. It's obviously possible that he's making it up, but if it's true then I'm not sure that he has a duty to remain silent and let that happen.

    I've nothing against Green, who seems pleasant and competent at his job, and I don't really care if he sometimes looked at legal porn 10 years ago (yes, it shouldn't have happened at work, but not IMO a hanging offence): the political implications are limited since if he quit someone else would take the job and we'd all have forgotten about it next week. But I don't think we know enough to be sure that Lewis is behaving unreasonably. I think the Cabinet Office enquiry should include Lewis in their investigation (which apparently they haven't yet), and then we should all just wait and see the findings.
    Employees are under a duty of confidentiality to their employers. And this duty continues even after they leave in respect of information gained in the course of their employment. A fortiori for information about the details of a police investigation. Revealing confidential information - and the information he has revealed is confidential - is a breach of that duty. Wanting to defend his former boss is not a sufficient justification for doing so. The proper course would be to raise it in private to those doing the inquiry into Mr Green. Not in public. Not to the press.

    This is ABC stuff for investigators. That the police appear to be unaware of these basic rules or willing to ignore them is simply wrong and worrying, given the powers they have.
    Given the police for years had advice about automatically believing accusations of hiatoric abuse unless the accused could prove they were untrue, resulting in such cases as the attempted implication of guilt of Heath by the police to save face, I am increasingly worried. As sir Richard Henriques reported it was a total mess. You investigate thoroughly, but not automatically believe.

    I am stunned anyone would suggest defending a former boss is justification for what appears to be happening.

    Green himself is practically immaterial to this it seems, given these implications.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.

    That's odd. I'd have thought the test of the migration stats was simply a comparison between the 2011 Census and 2011 mid year estimate. There must be more to it that than "have we added in enough births/immigrants and taken away enough deaths/emigrants?"
    I imagine there must be lots of the 'beds in sheds' type immigrants not being picked up on the census.
    Most illegals and overstayers won’t want to fill in the census form (or any other official form for that matter), no matter how many times they’re told the information won’t be shared with the Home Office.
    After watching this morning's interview with Lewis, who can blame them :)
    I haven't worked for the police, but I trust the ONS a lot more with my information than most other organisations.
    That’s because you know who the ONS are and what they do - and importantly don’t do with the data.

    Illegal immigrants don’t necessarily have that knowledge, they just see “officials” collecting names and addresses for “the government”
  • Options
    I was pretty pissed off by Bob Quick's initial accusations against Green, for all the arguments about confidentiality and the like.

    However, I talked it through with someone who disciplines coppers and their view was that this was perfectly ok. There is a strong public interest defence. looking at porn at work on work computers is misconduct in public office. He is in effect deputy PM so should be public knowledge.

    I can see why they didn't bring that at the time. When they were being accused of a politically motivated raid of his office, to have then charged him with something unrelated like this would have just underlined the banana republic nature of the investigation.

    Still, leaves a bad taste and does erode my trust in the police. That said, the Met is an exceptionally bad police force and most others in England and Wales are much better so don't tar all coppers with the Met's failings.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,319
    edited December 2017
    Nigelb said:



    I don't care much about Green one way or the other, but the police behaviour is, on the face of it, absolutely unacceptable. To criticise it is not 'social media lynching'.

    A detail that I've noticed, reading the story more closely - Lewis says that the porn was not "extreme" (whatever that means). That simultaneously reinforces his credibility (if he was just out to get Green, why hold back?) and undermines the credibility of the earlier reports (which IIRC said that the material was extreme enough to be illegal a few months later).

    All very odd, regardless of the rights and wrongs. A more general point is that we are still hung up as a society about porn, however legal. If it was alleged that Green had cookery recipes on his work computer, it would be evidence of non-work material in exactly the same way, but I don't believe that anyone would turn a hair.

    As an IT manager I once came across an employee perusing a dating site in his lunch break, using his work computer. I decided it was no worse than reading the paper or going for a walk, and left him to it. If he'd been looking at legal porn I think I'd have asked him not to. So I'm as inconsistent as anyone.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.

    Nope - I really dislike this call for pensions to be removed from whomever's hit the news (mostly public servants but there have been some private sector examples too). Pensions are deferred salary and should be treated as such; bad behaviour should be punished via the civil or criminal law.
  • Options

    Does "withdraw support" mean they'd vote against/abstain in a confidence vote, or just that they wouldn't promise not to?

    I suspect it depends on the specific issue on why the confidence motion was triggered.

    Because of the intricacies of the FTPA confidence votes aren't what they used to be.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,606
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    A full report into Orgreave would be politically smart for the Tories. It is coming when the Tories are next out of power (Which is a political certainty at some point in the future).
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842
    edited December 2017
    Green is definitely a lay for next cabinet member out. There’s no way the PM will let him resign over this issue, when there’s so many unanswered questions about the conduct of others in the case - stretching back to the initial raid on his office a decade ago.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    edited December 2017
    Yorkcity said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    My faith in the police evaporated over many years but was driven by two events primarily - the actions at and subsequent lies over Orgreave and the stitching up of Andrew Mitchell. The fact that the police thought they couldn't should get away with such abuses of their position means that are no longer fit for purpose.
    I agree over the two cases you mention.However I do not agree with you use of the John Reid quote regarding the Police, in most circumstances they do a fantastic job.
    I haven't used a John Reid quote. Everything I said wad my own opinion and nothing more.
  • Options
    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Green is definitely a lay for next cabinet member out. There’s no way the PM will let him resign over this issue, when there’s so many unanswered questions about the conduct of others in the case - stretching back to the initial raid on his office a decade ago.
    He might have to go for other reasons though.
  • Options
    JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    Good Manufacturing PMI figures this morning

    "“UK manufacturing shifted up a gear in November, with growth of output, new orders and employment all gathering pace. On its current course, manufacturing production is rising at a quarterly rate approaching 2%, providing a real boost to the pace of broader economic expansion. "

    https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/de9d7f6d469c4b7c9f9d18dd5d7776ea

    I'd think the key will be, whether manufacturing starts to make longer term capital investment that allows output to continue to grow or whether this manufacturing growth is a short term burst as manufacturers run down their equipment in anticipation of poorer EU export opportunities. This was the Treasury view of Brexit, that exporting would actually drop (grow more slowly) as capital investment was shifted elsewhere in the world and UK manufacturing capacity decreased.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842

    Does "withdraw support" mean they'd vote against/abstain in a confidence vote, or just that they wouldn't promise not to?

    And if the DUP abstain a confidence motion the government still wins, they’d need to actively vote against to defeat the government.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    /they worked on a decade ago, in which no charges were brought and where the evidence no longer exists. For political reasons. Don’t police officers sign confidentiality agreements?

    Reading the link, it's clear that Lewis is motivated partly by Green's very personal attack on Quick plus the flat denial of any porn on the systems, both of which looked unwise. *If* Lewis did find what he says, then hearing his former boss attacked as a liar for something he had himself seen would be intolerable. It's obviously possible that he's making it up, but if it's true then I'm not sure that he has a duty to remain silent and let that happen.

    I've nothing against Green, who seems pleasant and competent at his job, and I don't really care if he sometimes looked at legal porn 10 years ago (yes, it shouldn't have happened at work, but not IMO a hanging offence): the political implications are limited since if he quit someone else would take the job and we'd all have forgotten about it next week. But I don't think we know enough to be sure that Lewis is behaving unreasonably. I think the Cabinet Office enquiry should include Lewis in their investigation (which apparently they haven't yet), and then we should all just wait and see the findings.
    Employees are under a duty of confidentiality to their employers. And this duty continues even after they leave in respect of information gained in the course of their employment. A fortiori for information about the details of a police investigation. Revealing confidential information - and the information he has revealed is confidential - is a breach of that duty. Wanting to defend his former boss is not a sufficient justification for doing so. The proper course would be to raise it in private to those doing the inquiry into Mr Green. Not in public. Not to the press.

    This is ABC stuff for investigators. That the police appear to be unaware of these basic rules or willing to ignore them is simply wrong and worrying, given the powers they have.
    There's also the data protection legislation to be considered. This seems to have been breached spectacularly in multiple ways.
    There are increasing powers for fining holders of information for breaches, as I understand it, how does that apply to individuals.

    I know many good and decent police officers, but stuff like this and the outright lies in pleb gate really get my hackles up, I cannot stand abuse of authority or ignoring proper procedures on the basis that overall someone does good or for personal reasons. It's why I find it hard to sympathise these days with cliché rule breaking coppers in tv shows, unless it is acknowledged such arrogant use of power and ignoring process is crossing a line.
  • Options
    AJKAJK Posts: 20
    I think if Corbyn steps aside for Thornberry, Labour could take a huge number of Tory marginals. Thieve people won’t vote for Marxism, but would find Mrs Thornberry’s traditional soft left Labourism acceptable. Jeremy could then retire to great applause as the person who helped bring the Labour Party within touching distance of government.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,606

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
  • Options
    AJK said:

    I think if Corbyn steps aside for Thornberry, Labour could take a huge number of Tory marginals. Thieve people won’t vote for Marxism, but would find Mrs Thornberry’s traditional soft left Labourism acceptable. Jeremy could then retire to great applause as the person who helped bring the Labour Party within touching distance of government.

    I think imagining any possible change as only having positive effects is somewhat naive.
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    I was pretty pissed off by Bob Quick's initial accusations against Green, for all the arguments about confidentiality and the like.

    However, I talked it through with someone who disciplines coppers and their view was that this was perfectly ok. There is a strong public interest defence. looking at porn at work on work computers is misconduct in public office. He is in effect deputy PM so should be public knowledge.

    I can see why they didn't bring that at the time. When they were being accused of a politically motivated raid of his office, to have then charged him with something unrelated like this would have just underlined the banana republic nature of the investigation.

    Still, leaves a bad taste and does erode my trust in the police. That said, the Met is an exceptionally bad police force and most others in England and Wales are much better so don't tar all coppers with the Met's failings.

    I don't think that would count as misconduct in public office. It would at worst, be a breach of one's terms of employment.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,606

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    Then what's all the fuss about?!
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think it was the cash for honours that first sent a shiver down the spines of ordinary citizens. Specificaly when Tony Blair's secretary had her house raided at 6AM by six policemen with several journalists in attendance. It was the first occasion I remember feeing there was an establishment pulling the strings who considered themselves above our elected politicians.
    I felt uneasy a while ago when the Police raided the Maxwell sons homes at 6 in the morning , with all the media attendance.I believe one of the wife's shouted from an upper bedroom " ....off or we will call the police" They replied we are the police.The tipping off the media of famous people in custody has been a long term problem,.I suppose it only takes a phone call from an officer with no respect for the position he or she holds in society.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    “Extreme” porn is a legal definition from the CJA 2008 (passed after the Green office raid) and is illegal to possess.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625
    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    That's true, but laws are not retroactive (except in very rare cases?) so the detail is irrelevant
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    Pulpstar said:

    A full report into Orgreave would be politically smart for the Tories. It is coming when the Tories are next out of power (Which is a political certainty at some point in the future).
    I doubt if either then or now, many Tories sympathise with the pickets.
  • Options
    Mr. Max, can't disagree with any of that. And the other side are even worse.

    Rather wish we had a First Amendment style law.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625
    edited December 2017
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    Then what's all the fuss about?!
    It would be poor behaviour, but the police involved should not be pesuing vendettas like this as a result.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842
    edited December 2017
    Yorkcity said:

    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think it was the cash for honours that first sent a shiver down the spines of ordinary citizens. Specificaly when Tony Blair's secretary had her house raided at 6AM by six policemen with several journalists in attendance. It was the first occasion I remember feeing there was an establishment pulling the strings who considered themselves above our elected politicians.
    I felt uneasy a while ago when the Police raided the Maxwell sons homes at 6 in the morning , with all the media attendance.I believe one of the wife's shouted from an upper bedroom " ....off or we will call the police" They replied we are the police.The tipping off the media of famous people in custody has been a long term problem,.I suppose it only takes a phone call from an officer with no respect for the position he or she holds in society.
    Cliff Richard, for a more recent example. That cost the taxpayer £1m in compensation after the police dragged the BBC (complete with helicopter) olong on the raid of his house.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625

    Sandpit said:

    Green is definitely a lay for next cabinet member out. There’s no way the PM will let him resign over this issue, when there’s so many unanswered questions about the conduct of others in the case - stretching back to the initial raid on his office a decade ago.
    He might have to go for other reasons though.
    These ex officers will hope so - they will claim vindication even though their disgraceful behaviour us in no way erased even if Green has done something else more serious he resigns over.
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Does "withdraw support" mean they'd vote against/abstain in a confidence vote, or just that they wouldn't promise not to?

    I suspect it depends on the specific issue on why the confidence motion was triggered.

    Because of the intricacies of the FTPA confidence votes aren't what they used to be.
    Then the question is, in practice, would the opposition be likely to be able to craft a vote which served as a confidence motion and which everyone but the Tories would vote against?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    A full report into Orgreave would be politically smart for the Tories. It is coming when the Tories are next out of power (Which is a political certainty at some point in the future).
    I doubt if either then or now, many Tories sympathise with the pickets.
    There weren't many Tories present in the Liverpool end at Hillsborough or facing the NI police at Bloody Sunday (Those were a magnitude of order more serious than Orgreave where noone was killed) either. It didn't stop David Cameron from doing the right thing.
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    Then what's all the fuss about?!
    It is a vendetta by some against Damian Green and the Tories.

    They don't like the Tories.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    A(Met)CAB

    The real politicisiation of the Met goes back to when Tony Blair ensured no junior coppers carried the can for the senior coppers' failings over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. In the end, none of the officers faced disciplinary charges. He was "their guy" who looked out for them.

    He also looked out for the senior cops. In the end, the office of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner got off with just a fine. No pensions were harmed in the course of this whitewash.

    There's an interesting story to be told, of those hours and days after the shooting....
  • Options

    Does "withdraw support" mean they'd vote against/abstain in a confidence vote, or just that they wouldn't promise not to?

    I suspect it depends on the specific issue on why the confidence motion was triggered.

    Because of the intricacies of the FTPA confidence votes aren't what they used to be.
    Then the question is, in practice, would the opposition be likely to be able to craft a vote which served as a confidence motion and which everyone but the Tories would vote against?
    Even a budget vote is no longer considered a de facto confidence motion.

    It has to be an explicit no confidence vote.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    Sean_F said:

    I was pretty pissed off by Bob Quick's initial accusations against Green, for all the arguments about confidentiality and the like.

    However, I talked it through with someone who disciplines coppers and their view was that this was perfectly ok. There is a strong public interest defence. looking at porn at work on work computers is misconduct in public office. He is in effect deputy PM so should be public knowledge.

    I can see why they didn't bring that at the time. When they were being accused of a politically motivated raid of his office, to have then charged him with something unrelated like this would have just underlined the banana republic nature of the investigation.

    Still, leaves a bad taste and does erode my trust in the police. That said, the Met is an exceptionally bad police force and most others in England and Wales are much better so don't tar all coppers with the Met's failings.

    I don't think that would count as misconduct in public office. It would at worst, be a breach of one's terms of employment.
    And when it comes to MPs, there are no terms of employment other than what happens at the ballot box.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    A full report into Orgreave would be politically smart for the Tories. It is coming when the Tories are next out of power (Which is a political certainty at some point in the future).
    I doubt if either then or now, many Tories sympathise with the pickets.
    There weren't many Tories present in the Liverpool end at Hillsborough or facing the NI police at Bloody Sunday (Those were a magnitude of order more serious than Orgreave where noone was killed) either. It didn't stop David Cameron from doing the right thing.
    Two quite amazing Parliamentary speeches from Cameron on Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday. Moved a lot of people to tears, even political opponents.
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    True , however we do not pay our public servants to watch such material in work time.Sutely there must be a code of conduct, in what , an how long you can use the work computer for personal use.There is in most large organisations.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,606

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    Then what's all the fuss about?!
    It is a vendetta by some against Damian Green and the Tories.

    They don't like the Tories.
    I know that, but isn't it time for the PM to just say that and eviscerate the police?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095

    Does "withdraw support" mean they'd vote against/abstain in a confidence vote, or just that they wouldn't promise not to?

    I suspect it depends on the specific issue on why the confidence motion was triggered.

    Because of the intricacies of the FTPA confidence votes aren't what they used to be.
    Then the question is, in practice, would the opposition be likely to be able to craft a vote which served as a confidence motion and which everyone but the Tories would vote against?
    Even a budget vote is no longer considered a de facto confidence motion.

    It has to be an explicit no confidence vote.
    The great unknown is whether the SNP would vote to bring down the Government (and thereby, put at risk many of their seats in Scotland, virtually all of which are know marginal/super-marginal) - or simply abstain. The question then is whether abstaining is seen as propping up the Tories becausue the SNP are "frit" - or if they can spin it as just letting Westminster stew in its own juices. A view on this from North of the Border would be welcomed.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842

    A(Met)CAB

    The real politicisiation of the Met goes back to when Tony Blair ensured no junior coppers carried the can for the senior coppers' failings over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. In the end, none of the officers faced disciplinary charges. He was "their guy" who looked out for them.

    He also looked out for the senior cops. In the end, the office of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner got off with just a fine. No pensions were harmed in the course of this whitewash.

    There's an interesting story to be told, of those hours and days after the shooting....
    No junior copper carried the can, fair enough. But what of the punishment to the most senior copper on duty, who made the call - Ms Cressida Dick?
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    Then what's all the fuss about?!
    It is a vendetta by some against Damian Green and the Tories.

    They don't like the Tories.
    I know that, but isn't it time for the PM to just say that and eviscerate the police?
    She doesn't want to do that if Damian Green is forced out for other reasons.
  • Options
    We're staying in the EU via the back door, the great betrayal continues.

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/936535226490245120
  • Options
    TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    We're staying in the EU via the back door, the great betrayal continues.

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/936535226490245120

    What control do you think the ECJ actually exerts over the nation states under this agreement?
  • Options
    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    True , however we do not pay our public servants to watch such material in work time.Sutely there must be a code of conduct, in what , an how long you can use the work computer for personal use.There is in most large organisations.
    For all we know it might have been accidentally downloaded, or he might have been sent a dodgy link.

    Apparently some porn sites are a pop up window nightmare I am told.
  • Options
    TonyE said:

    We're staying in the EU via the back door, the great betrayal continues.

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/936535226490245120

    What control do you think the ECJ actually exerts over the nation states under this agreement?
    About as much as Euroatom.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625
    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    True , however we do not pay our public servants to watch such material in work time.Sutely there must be a code of conduct, in what , an how long you can use the work computer for personal use.There is in most large organisations.
    It would be wrong of hin to do it, and in many organisations you might get sacked for it. MPS are sacked at the ballot box however. And it isn't for police to leak to the media in pursuit of an MPS resignation. That's one reason even though he may well have said pleb that Mitchell was hounded by liars in the police federation who wanted his head, proven on tape, in addition to the fake police witness.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    A full report into Orgreave would be politically smart for the Tories. It is coming when the Tories are next out of power (Which is a political certainty at some point in the future).
    I doubt if either then or now, many Tories sympathise with the pickets.
    There weren't many Tories present in the Liverpool end at Hillsborough or facing the NI police at Bloody Sunday (Those were a magnitude of order more serious than Orgreave where noone was killed) either. It didn't stop David Cameron from doing the right thing.
    I miss Cameron
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842
    TonyE said:

    We're staying in the EU via the back door, the great betrayal continues.

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/936535226490245120

    What control do you think the ECJ actually exerts over the nation states under this agreement?
    None at all, he’s just trolling.

    Associate membership of some EU organisations such as EASA and Euratom is commonsensical.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    I was pretty pissed off by Bob Quick's initial accusations against Green, for all the arguments about confidentiality and the like.

    However, I talked it through with someone who disciplines coppers and their view was that this was perfectly ok. There is a strong public interest defence. looking at porn at work on work computers is misconduct in public office. He is in effect deputy PM so should be public knowledge.

    I can see why they didn't bring that at the time. When they were being accused of a politically motivated raid of his office, to have then charged him with something unrelated like this would have just underlined the banana republic nature of the investigation.

    Still, leaves a bad taste and does erode my trust in the police. That said, the Met is an exceptionally bad police force and most others in England and Wales are much better so don't tar all coppers with the Met's failings.

    I don't think that would count as misconduct in public office. It would at worst, be a breach of one's terms of employment.
    Every place I've ever worked at has disciplined employees for looking at porn on work computers. There have been sackings, and in my current job, merely looking at porn on your mobile would be very dicey. Aside from that, what sort of moron would use a work's pc to look at porn?
  • Options
    anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,578
    Sean_F said:

    I was pretty pissed off by Bob Quick's initial accusations against Green, for all the arguments about confidentiality and the like.

    However, I talked it through with someone who disciplines coppers and their view was that this was perfectly ok. There is a strong public interest defence. looking at porn at work on work computers is misconduct in public office. He is in effect deputy PM so should be public knowledge.

    I can see why they didn't bring that at the time. When they were being accused of a politically motivated raid of his office, to have then charged him with something unrelated like this would have just underlined the banana republic nature of the investigation.

    Still, leaves a bad taste and does erode my trust in the police. That said, the Met is an exceptionally bad police force and most others in England and Wales are much better so don't tar all coppers with the Met's failings.

    I don't think that would count as misconduct in public office. It would at worst, be a breach of one's terms of employment.
    Certainly most employers would have an absolute ban on porn in their IT policy and viewing it in work time and storing it on company networks would be a sacking offence.

    And Green unwisely issued a blanket denial when the allegations first surfaced - this has weakened his position.

  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Sandpit said:

    A(Met)CAB

    The real politicisiation of the Met goes back to when Tony Blair ensured no junior coppers carried the can for the senior coppers' failings over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. In the end, none of the officers faced disciplinary charges. He was "their guy" who looked out for them.

    He also looked out for the senior cops. In the end, the office of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner got off with just a fine. No pensions were harmed in the course of this whitewash.

    There's an interesting story to be told, of those hours and days after the shooting....
    No junior copper carried the can, fair enough. But what of the punishment to the most senior copper on duty, who made the call - Ms Cressida Dick?
    Why should there be any punishment, she had to make the call on the facts given to her in real time .Massive responsibility for. Gold commander in such a situation.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,625

    Sean_F said:

    I was pretty pissed off by Bob Quick's initial accusations against Green, for all the arguments about confidentiality and the like.

    However, I talked it through with someone who disciplines coppers and their view was that this was perfectly ok. There is a strong public interest defence. looking at porn at work on work computers is misconduct in public office. He is in effect deputy PM so should be public knowledge.

    I can see why they didn't bring that at the time. When they were being accused of a politically motivated raid of his office, to have then charged him with something unrelated like this would have just underlined the banana republic nature of the investigation.

    Still, leaves a bad taste and does erode my trust in the police. That said, the Met is an exceptionally bad police force and most others in England and Wales are much better so don't tar all coppers with the Met's failings.

    I don't think that would count as misconduct in public office. It would at worst, be a breach of one's terms of employment.
    Certainly most employers would have an absolute ban on porn in their IT policy and viewing it in work time and storing it on company networks would be a sacking offence.

    And Green unwisely issued a blanket denial when the allegations first surfaced - this has weakened his position.

    Perhaps, though the overreach of these officers has bolstered it in some eyes to compensate.
  • Options
    anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,578

    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    True , however we do not pay our public servants to watch such material in work time.Sutely there must be a code of conduct, in what , an how long you can use the work computer for personal use.There is in most large organisations.
    For all we know it might have been accidentally downloaded, or he might have been sent a dodgy link.

    Apparently some porn sites are a pop up window nightmare I am told.
    Thousands of images? By accident? Seems very unlikely. But if it was the case the correct course would be to report it to IT and get them removed asap. Not to examine them in detail during working hours.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    A full report into Orgreave would be politically smart for the Tories. It is coming when the Tories are next out of power (Which is a political certainty at some point in the future).
    I doubt if either then or now, many Tories sympathise with the pickets.
    There weren't many Tories present in the Liverpool end at Hillsborough or facing the NI police at Bloody Sunday (Those were a magnitude of order more serious than Orgreave where noone was killed) either. It didn't stop David Cameron from doing the right thing.
    I'm very grateful to the Thatcher government for having brought an end to mass picketing. Orgreave was part of that.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    edited December 2017
    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    True , however we do not pay our public servants to watch such material in work time.Sutely there must be a code of conduct, in what , an how long you can use the work computer for personal use.There is in most large organisations.
    OK, I'm not automatically leaping to the defence of Damian Green here - but let's take a leap and assume a generic MP was looking at (legal) porn on a Westminster issued lap-top computer. And let's say the bulk of it was watched, in amongst writing correspondence and reading a constant stream of distracting e-mails, from 7.00pm to midnight - when Jo Public could be curled up, watching porn in the comfort of their own home. And so might the MP - if it was Friday, Saturday, Sunday night, or when the House wasn't sitting. Which raises the question, are MPs at all times public servants? When are they allowed to be "off duty", doing what ther constituents do? Do we own them 24/7?
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Sandpit said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    TonyE said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    If it wasn’t for Orwell you’d begin to wonder if there was something about the name Blair. It may be an overstatement to say that is when the rot set in but his leadership of the Met was a disaster.
    His leadership of the Met did exactly what it was designed to do
    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think it was the cash for honours that first sent a shiver down the spines of ordinary citizens. Specificaly when Tony Blair's secretary had her house raided at 6AM by six policemen with several journalists in attendance. It was the first occasion I remember feeing there was an establishment pulling the strings who considered themselves above our elected politicians.
    I felt uneasy a while ago when the Police raided the Maxwell sons homes at 6 in the morning , with all the media attendance.I believe one of the wife's shouted from an upper bedroom " ....off or we will call the police" They replied we are the police.The tipping off the media of famous people in custody has been a long term problem,.I suppose it only takes a phone call from an officer with no respect for the position he or she holds in society.
    Cliff Richard, for a more recent example. That cost the taxpayer £1m in compensation after the police dragged the BBC (complete with helicopter) olong on the raid of his house.
    Yes totally agree , Sir Cliff Richard was another example of the Poliice and the media, showing no respect .
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    Sean_F said:

    I was pretty pissed off by Bob Quick's initial accusations against Green, for all the arguments about confidentiality and the like.

    However, I talked it through with someone who disciplines coppers and their view was that this was perfectly ok. There is a strong public interest defence. looking at porn at work on work computers is misconduct in public office. He is in effect deputy PM so should be public knowledge.

    I can see why they didn't bring that at the time. When they were being accused of a politically motivated raid of his office, to have then charged him with something unrelated like this would have just underlined the banana republic nature of the investigation.

    Still, leaves a bad taste and does erode my trust in the police. That said, the Met is an exceptionally bad police force and most others in England and Wales are much better so don't tar all coppers with the Met's failings.

    I don't think that would count as misconduct in public office. It would at worst, be a breach of one's terms of employment.
    And when it comes to MPs, there are no terms of employment other than what happens at the ballot box.
    Taxpayer provided computer, provided solely for their work as an MP in taxpayer provided office.

    If this had been his personal computer at home then book would be thrown, except there is no punishment since Quick and co aren't coppers any more and they can't take the pensions away.
This discussion has been closed.