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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
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?
Ms. Cressida DIck, the current Commissioner of the Met? Clearly a huge stain on her career, from which she never recovered.....
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.
I’ve had the occasional call as an IT managr from someone who had “clicked a link” and all sorts of stuff had appeared on their screen. No problem, if it’s reported at the time. These things happen and if they report it before our monitoring finds it then no problem.
It’s pretty easy to tell from log files if someone did indeed click on a link, or if they’re an habitual porn watcher. A decade ago it was also much easier to come across this stuff by accident than it is now, filtering and monitoring of systems and networks has improved markedly in that time frame.
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?
I'm not buying that. If you've absolutely got to look at porn at work, on a work pc, you need to have a word with yourself.
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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
What control do you think the ECJ actually exerts over the nation states under this agreement?
About as much as Euroatom.
The difference is that Euratom membership isn't a choice. Lisbon rolled it into the EU treaty. What we can do with Euratom is what others have done, and have an association agreement with it. There is little political interference in such arrangements, and certainly nothing that we should worry about.
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?
Ms. Cressida DIck, the current Commissioner of the Met? Clearly a huge stain on her career, from which she never recovered.....
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?
And what kind of moron looks at child porn from a work computer (I know of a director at a County Council who did so.)
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.
The real question is why they didn't know who this man was already, seeing as they had him under surveillance.
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.
And how many people are going to say to their IT department "This porn just appeared on my computer...."? Get real. 99.9% of people who innocently had unwanted porn arrive on their computer would a) expect not to be believed and b) just say "ooo-er!" and try and delete it. Or - like the Friends episode where they suddenly get free porn on the TV - might just settle down to a night in - and be distraught if it stops!
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?
It can not be correct to use public sector work computers to view such material.I believe if found on any other public sector employee such as a nurse, local council employee, police officer , they would be suspended pending an investigation.Or do you think they would be able to do what they like on work computers ?
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.
Yes I think that may be the case.
Though I think public opinion, in as much as it is interested in these issues, will take a dim view of Green's behaviour and not care too much about how it came into the public domain.
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?
It's An Interesting Question, Although As A Matter Of It Policy and security They Shouldn't Look At porn on a government issued laptop which contains, no doubt, sensitive materials. If it was a case of jerking it at home while idly doing other work, I really don't need to know and its of no relevance to the job at hand, as it were.
I'm in favour of most jobs sacking people for such things, but I do think in all fairness that MPs are different due to being elected. They cannot be fired even if they commit a criminal offence if the sentence is low ebough, unless it's electoral fraud, so resignation for a breach like thus seems extreme.
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?
Employers would categorise this as mis-use of company resources. The company pays for and provides tools for the employee to use in pursuit of their work. In the same category would be using a work phone to make private calls, and helping yourself to stationery from the office. And then, in the case of computers, usually has some sort of a policy that allows for "reasonable personal use", for example internet shopping or personal emails during work breaks - but qualifies this by banning alcohol, gambling, etc., any sort of private business activity, and so on. Nowadays most of this is enforced by blocking filters - and I bet parliamentary computers have a filter that prevents porn access. Mr Green was clearly a pioneer who explored the range of services he could access from his device before such filters came in (and I bet, before they had any sort of policy).
It's less of a problem nowadays, when most people have their own smartphones and tablets, than it was in the day when having a portable computer was a novelty and people got things from their company that they otherwise wouldn't have had.
What control do you think the ECJ actually exerts over the nation states under this agreement?
About as much as Euroatom.
The difference is that Euratom membership isn't a choice. Lisbon rolled it into the EU treaty. What we can do with Euratom is what others have done, and have an association agreement with it. There is little political interference in such arrangements, and certainly nothing that we should worry about.
The country voted to Leave and take back control of our laws.
Remaining under the auspices of the CJEU is an insult to democracy.
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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
I dunno where you've worked, but every place I've worked at during the internet age absolutely has a internet usage policy, and yep, at every one, someone has ended up disciplined for inappropriate content being used. As I say, getting caught looking at dodgy stuff on my mobile would be iffy as well!
"“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. "
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.
Good morning all.
It is very positive that orders for plant and machinery were the highest in twenty years. Of course, we don't know where those investment goods were bound, but still.
In terms of EASA (per @TSE), I don't mind at all, ditto Euratom or Erasmus. Sovereignty is a strange beast, n'est ce pas?
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?
It's An Interesting Question, Although As A Matter Of It Policy and security They Shouldn't Look At porn on a government issued laptop which contains, no doubt, sensitive materials. If it was a case of jerking it at home while idly doing other work, I really don't need to know and its of no relevance to the job at hand, as it were.
I'm in favour of most jobs sacking people for such things, but I do think in all fairness that MPs are different due to being elected. They cannot be fired even if they commit a criminal offence if the sentence is low ebough, unless it's electoral fraud, so resignation for a breach like thus seems extreme.
Does the government issue laptops? I thought MP's bought their own but had a right to claim expenses? There is a subtle difference, in that anything bought by the MP might have some personal use but is allowed under the expenses rules so long as it assists them in doing their parliamentary job.
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?
It can not be correct to use public sector work computers to view such material.I believe if found on any other public sector employee such as a nurse, local council employee, police officer , they would be suspended pending an investigation.Or do you think they would be able to do what they like on work computers ?
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.
And how many people are going to say to their IT department "This porn just appeared on my computer...."? Get real. 99.9% of people who innocently had unwanted porn arrive on their computer would a) expect not to be believed and b) just say "ooo-er!" and try and delete it. Or - like the Friends episode where they suddenly get free porn on the TV - might just settle down to a night in - and be distraught if it stops!
You’d be quite surprised. In environments where employees know they’re being monitored, the choice is between an embarrassing call to the IT manager and tea & biscuits with the HR manager (frequently with no tea and no biscuits).
What control do you think the ECJ actually exerts over the nation states under this agreement?
About as much as Euroatom.
The difference is that Euratom membership isn't a choice. Lisbon rolled it into the EU treaty. What we can do with Euratom is what others have done, and have an association agreement with it. There is little political interference in such arrangements, and certainly nothing that we should worry about.
The country voted to Leave and take back control of our laws.
Remaining under the auspices of the CJEU is an insult to democracy.
I'm sure Boris said that if we voted Leave, June 23rd would be our Interdependence Day. Something like that anyway...
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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
I dunno where you've worked, but every place I've worked at during the internet age absolutely has a internet usage policy, and yep, at every one, someone has ended up disciplined for inappropriate content being used. As I say, getting caught looking at dodgy stuff on my mobile would be iffy as well!
Same here, I've had to dismiss two people for misusing work devices/the internet.
One for repeatedly looking at mucky stuff, another for stalking an ex.
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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
I think IT at my old work just turned a blind eye otherwise the whole development floor would have been disciplined.
It's not the legality of what Green has done, it's the embarrassment. He's up there now with Jacqui Smith's husband, Keith Vaz and that guy from the co-up bank who liked smoking crack, tarred as a perv.
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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
I dunno where you've worked, but every place I've worked at during the internet age absolutely has a internet usage policy, and yep, at every one, someone has ended up disciplined for inappropriate content being used. As I say, getting caught looking at dodgy stuff on my mobile would be iffy as well!
Same here, I've had to dismiss two people for misusing work devices/the internet.
One for repeatedly looking at mucky stuff, another for stalking an ex.
One place I worked at even blocked PB as mucky stuff.
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.
And according to the latest policeman at least (who seems to have been the one who did the work of examine the material) it wasn't "extreme". Although he also refers to a laptop without specifically saying it was him who examined this? It is was, then the "extreme" tag appears to have been added by someone to elaborate the story.
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?
It can not be correct to use public sector work computers to view such material.I believe if found on any other public sector employee such as a nurse, local council employee, police officer , they would be suspended pending an investigation.Or do you think they would be able to do what they like on work computers ?
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
I dunno where you've worked, but every place I've worked at during the internet age absolutely has a internet usage policy, and yep, at every one, someone has ended up disciplined for inappropriate content being used. As I say, getting caught looking at dodgy stuff on my mobile would be iffy as well!
Same here, I've had to dismiss two people for misusing work devices/the internet.
One for repeatedly looking at mucky stuff, another for stalking an ex.
One place I worked at even blocked PB as mucky stuff.
My local authority's filter blocked PB under the category "gambling". I had to argue that the site didn't involve any gambling and was one of the leading political discussion sites that all councillors could learn from, to get a specific exemption introduced for this site. It helped that I was the Cabinet member responsible for IT policy at the time.
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?
I'm intrigued as to what you automatically leaping to the defence of Damian Green might look like.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
Agreed. The government's muddled thinking has been a problem all throughout this negotiation.
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?
It's An Interesting Question, Although As A Matter Of It Policy and security They Shouldn't Look At porn on a government issued laptop which contains, no doubt, sensitive materials. If it was a case of jerking it at home while idly doing other work, I really don't need to know and its of no relevance to the job at hand, as it were.
I'm in favour of most jobs sacking people for such things, but I do think in all fairness that MPs are different due to being elected. They cannot be fired even if they commit a criminal offence if the sentence is low ebough, unless it's electoral fraud, so resignation for a breach like thus seems extreme.
Does the government issue laptops? I thought MP's bought their own but had a right to claim expenses? There is a subtle difference, in that anything bought by the MP might have some personal use but is allowed under the expenses rules so long as it assists them in doing their parliamentary job.
I honestly don't know in fairness. That his device will have access to sensitive material, I assume, woukd be good reason it should be required not to access risky sites for instance, but even if it is government issued, it wasn't illegal, and MPs cannot be sacked for it, so no need for police comment, even if party or parliament or Whitehall could take action.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
Agreed. The government's muddled thinking has been a problem all throughout this negotiation.
It's called Brexit. The whole concept is an installation art piece in muddled thinking.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
Having clear aims also makes it easier to see when you have failed. I wonder if the DUP will still like the taste of a full English Brexit this time next week.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
It will eventually have to concede that the UK will remain in the customs union. This will be a prelude to a decision to remain in the single market, which will come later.
Mr. Meeks, a reputation for never bluffing saved Zhuge Liang when he was being pursued by Sima Yi.
Zhuge didn't have enough men to defend the city he was in, so he sat above the battlements by himself, playing a zither. Sima Yi looked at the situation and decided to retreat.
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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
I think IT at my old work just turned a blind eye otherwise the whole development floor would have been disciplined.
In a past life, over a decade or so I suppose now, I was disciplined because I'd been looking at porn on a work computer. Which came as a huge surprise to me, as I hadn't.
Naturally I appealed and an investigation ensued. It turned out that somebody had sent a link to a "funny" joke on a site that, if you left the browser idle on it for five or more minutes, it would auto forward you to the front page of a porn site for the ad revenue.
Me being me, I have about a hundred browser tabs open every day, and hardly ever bother closing tabs until I shut down the computer or close tabs en masse, so I never noticed the porn site. But to IT it looked as if I had been on bigjugs.whatever for an entire day!
Which would have been very hard (no pun intended) as my desk was in the middle of a very busy open plan office. I was exonerated, but the presumption of guilt said employer had when they pulled me up has stuck with me to this day.
I used to work at a print company that printed the 6N rugby programmes.
To win the 6 Nations Grand Slam, Wales needed to beat Ireland at home. We printed and delivered the programmes on the Friday before the big game.
We then had a complaint from the Welsh Rugby Union on the following Monday that somebody had been selling Wales v Ireland Grand Slam programmes on Ebay on the Friday night, listing them as 'untouched - limited edition'.
Turned out it was then guy who printed them. He'd been uploading them on an office computer! Trying to make some cash, selling the progs under his own name.
The WRU were cool about it (possibly because Wales won and the sun was out) and the printer kept his job. But it was a dumb-ass thing to do.
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 t 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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
I dunno where you've worked, but every place I've worked at during the internet age absolutely has a internet usage policy, and yep, at every one, someone has ended up disciplined for inappropriate content being used. As I say, getting caught looking at dodgy stuff on my mobile would be iffy as well!
Same here, I've had to dismiss two people for misusing work devices/the internet.
One for repeatedly looking at mucky stuff, another for stalking an ex.
One place I worked at even blocked PB as mucky stuff.
My local authority's filter blocked PB under the category "gambling". I had to argue that the site didn't involve any gambling and was one of the leading political discussion sites that all councillors could learn from, to get a specific exemption introduced for this site. It helped that I was the Cabinet member responsible for IT policy at the time.
I'll bet it did. Mine even blocks access via the public network (for the lobby, cafe and library ) but fortunately the vanilla forums slip through. Unless there's profanity.
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's An Interesting Question, Although As A Matter Of It Policy and security They Shouldn't Look At porn on a government issued laptop which contains, no doubt, sensitive materials. If it was a case of jerking it at home while idly doing other work, I really don't need to know and its of no relevance to the job at hand, as it were.
I'm in favour of most jobs sacking people for such things, but I do think in all fairness that MPs are different due to being elected. They cannot be fired even if they commit a criminal offence if the sentence is low ebough, unless it's electoral fraud, so resignation for a breach like thus seems extreme.
Does the government issue laptops? I thought MP's bought their own but had a right to claim expenses? There is a subtle difference, in that anything bought by the MP might have some personal use but is allowed under the expenses rules so long as it assists them in doing their parliamentary job.
I honestly don't know in fairness. That his device will have access to sensitive material, I assume, woukd be good reason it should be required not to access risky sites for instance, but even if it is government issued, it wasn't illegal, and MPs cannot be sacked for it, so no need for police comment, even if party or parliament or Whitehall could take action.
The security arrangements for public officials are so stringent nowadays that it is extremely difficult, maybe even prohibited (which was where my council ended up, having enabled a few in the past), to get your own device connected to government networks. We can't even access persona webmail, now, or forward attachments to other non official emails without it being impossible to detach them.
There is currently a VAT, income tax and corporation tax border between Northern Ireland and Ireland (as there is between the UK and other EU countries). These borders within the EU are policed by paperwork and digital processes.
The same paperwork/digital processes could be used for import tariff borderes between NI and Ireland (and between England and France etc). No need for a physical border.
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?
You mean the current head of the Met? Yep it certainly harmed her career didnt it.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
Having clear aims also makes it easier to see when you have failed. I wonder if the DUP will still like the taste of a full English Brexit this time next week.
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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
I think IT at my old work just turned a blind eye otherwise the whole development floor would have been disciplined.
Which would have been very hard (no pun intended) as my desk was in the middle of a very busy open plan office.
Depends how bold you are. Haven't some of the people on screens behind presenters at the BBC been caught looking at porn?
Theresa May has plunged to her lowest leadership ratings yet, with just a third of the public satisfied with her, an exclusive poll reveals today.
At the same time, the Conservatives are scoring worse than when David Cameron was in government for being “divided”, “fit to govern” or offering a “good team of leaders”.
The findings by pollsters Ipsos MORI come after a disastrous party conference speech, two Cabinet resignations, sex scandals and Tory warfare over Brexit.
Labour’s image has improved over the past year, found the researchers, but Jeremy Corbyn’s team has similar ratings to Ed Miliband’s and are behind the Conservatives on the fit-to-govern question.
Key findings reveal:
Optimism about the economy has plunged to the lowest since 2011. A clear majority, 58 per cent, think things will get worse in the year ahead.
The Prime Minister’s ratings have hit rock bottom, with 32 per cent satisfied with her performance (down five) and 59 per cent dissatisfied (up 6), a net rating of minus-27.
Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings have declined, with 42 per cent satisfied (unchanged) and 49 per cent dissatisfied (+4), or -7 overall.
Three quarters of the public see the Tories as divided. The worst score when Mr Cameron was PM was 68 per cent in 2013.
Only 27 per cent think the Conservatives offer a good team of leaders, compared with the Cameron era’s lowest score of 36 per cent in 2012.
Fewer than half (43 per cent) say the Conservatives are fit to govern. Cameron’s worst score as PM was 46 per cent in 2012.
Only 38 per cent think Labour are fit to govern, while just 31 per cent think they offer a good team of leaders. The party is seen as divided by 62 per cent.
Labour has a slim two-point lead, unchanged since last month, which suggests the next general election is wide open. The parties stand at: Conservatives, 37 per cent (-1); Labour, 39 (-1); Lib Dems nine (NC); Green four (+1) and UKIP on four (NC).
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 thought it was the paras who did the shooting on the establishment side on Bloody Sunday? We're the police accused of any shooting?
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 t 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.
blimey, every place not only had a policy but someone was caught breaching it every one? Bunch of sex maniacs.
I dunno where you've worked, but every place I've worked at during the internet age absolutely has a internet usage policy, and yep, at every one, someone has ended up disciplined for inappropriate content being used. As I say, getting caught looking at dodgy stuff on my mobile would be iffy as well!
Same here, I've had to dismiss two people for misusing work devices/the internet.
One for repeatedly looking at mucky stuff, another for stalking an ex.
One place I worked at even blocked PB as mucky stuff.
My local authority's filter blocked PB under the category "gambling". I had to argue that the site didn't involve any gambling and was one of the leading political discussion sites that all councillors could learn from, to get a specific exemption introduced for this site. It helped that I was the Cabinet member responsible for IT policy at the time.
I'll bet it did. Mine even blocks access via the public network (for the lobby, cafe and library ) but fortunately the vanilla forums slip through. Unless there's profanity.
Nevertheless, formally at least, it wasn't my decision. The exemption is still in place and applies to all PCs including public access ones in libraries. It needs someone (or the right person, I guess) to make a fuss. As the IT guys in here will know better than I, these filters can be crude in applying their set of rules.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
Having clear aims also makes it easier to see when you have failed. I wonder if the DUP will still like the taste of a full English Brexit this time next week.
The DUP will not be too troubled by the risk of economic crisis in the mainland UK.
There is currently a VAT, income tax and corporation tax border between Northern Ireland and Ireland (as there is between the UK and other EU countries). These borders within the EU are policed by paperwork and digital processes.
The same paperwork/digital processes could be used for import tariff borderes between NI and Ireland (and between England and France etc). No need for a physical border.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
Taxes apply at different rates in different countries, and even within countries. (Scotland now has different income tax rates from England). Taxes are not physical items crossing borders.
It's not the legality of what Green has done, it's the embarrassment. He's up there now with Jacqui Smith's husband, Keith Vaz and that guy from the co-up bank who liked smoking crack, tarred as a perv.
Hard to believe labour still behind on fit to govern. I think they'll win next GE given future events, but hard to see it being a big win given such a score even now.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
Having clear aims also makes it easier to see when you have failed. I wonder if the DUP will still like the taste of a full English Brexit this time next week.
The DUP will not be too troubled by the risk of economic crisis in the mainland UK.
They'll be troubled by the inevitable concessions to the EU to protect the Good Friday Agreement. Calling a bluff is an easier call with a larger union standing behind you.
Theresa May has plunged to her lowest leadership ratings yet, with just a third of the public satisfied with her, an exclusive poll reveals today.
At the same time, the Conservatives are scoring worse than when David Cameron was in government for being “divided”, “fit to govern” or offering a “good team of leaders”.
The findings by pollsters Ipsos MORI come after a disastrous party conference speech, two Cabinet resignations, sex scandals and Tory warfare over Brexit.
Labour’s image has improved over the past year, found the researchers, but Jeremy Corbyn’s team has similar ratings to Ed Miliband’s and are behind the Conservatives on the fit-to-govern question.
Key findings reveal:
Optimism about the economy has plunged to the lowest since 2011. A clear majority, 58 per cent, think things will get worse in the year ahead.
The Prime Minister’s ratings have hit rock bottom, with 32 per cent satisfied with her performance (down five) and 59 per cent dissatisfied (up 6), a net rating of minus-27.
Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings have declined, with 42 per cent satisfied (unchanged) and 49 per cent dissatisfied (+4), or -7 overall.
Three quarters of the public see the Tories as divided. The worst score when Mr Cameron was PM was 68 per cent in 2013.
Only 27 per cent think the Conservatives offer a good team of leaders, compared with the Cameron era’s lowest score of 36 per cent in 2012.
Fewer than half (43 per cent) say the Conservatives are fit to govern. Cameron’s worst score as PM was 46 per cent in 2012.
Only 38 per cent think Labour are fit to govern, while just 31 per cent think they offer a good team of leaders. The party is seen as divided by 62 per cent.
Labour has a slim two-point lead, unchanged since last month, which suggests the next general election is wide open. The parties stand at: Conservatives, 37 per cent (-1); Labour, 39 (-1); Lib Dems nine (NC); Green four (+1) and UKIP on four (NC).
Theresa May has plunged to her lowest leadership ratings yet, with just a third of the public satisfied with her, an exclusive poll reveals today.
At the same time, the Conservatives are scoring worse than when David Cameron was in government for being “divided”, “fit to govern” or offering a “good team of leaders”.
The findings by pollsters Ipsos MORI come after a disastrous party conference speech, two Cabinet resignations, sex scandals and Tory warfare over Brexit.
Labour’s image has improved over the past year, found the researchers, but Jeremy Corbyn’s team has similar ratings to Ed Miliband’s and are behind the Conservatives on the fit-to-govern question.
Key findings reveal:
Optimism about the economy has plunged to the lowest since 2011. A clear majority, 58 per cent, think things will get worse in the year ahead.
The Prime Minister’s ratings have hit rock bottom, with 32 per cent satisfied with her performance (down five) and 59 per cent dissatisfied (up 6), a net rating of minus-27.
Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings have declined, with 42 per cent satisfied (unchanged) and 49 per cent dissatisfied (+4), or -7 overall.
Three quarters of the public see the Tories as divided. The worst score when Mr Cameron was PM was 68 per cent in 2013.
Only 27 per cent think the Conservatives offer a good team of leaders, compared with the Cameron era’s lowest score of 36 per cent in 2012.
Fewer than half (43 per cent) say the Conservatives are fit to govern. Cameron’s worst score as PM was 46 per cent in 2012.
Only 38 per cent think Labour are fit to govern, while just 31 per cent think they offer a good team of leaders. The party is seen as divided by 62 per cent.
Labour has a slim two-point lead, unchanged since last month, which suggests the next general election is wide open. The parties stand at: Conservatives, 37 per cent (-1); Labour, 39 (-1); Lib Dems nine (NC); Green four (+1) and UKIP on four (NC).
It's not the legality of what Green has done, it's the embarrassment. He's up there now with Jacqui Smith's husband, Keith Vaz and that guy from the co-up bank who liked smoking crack, tarred as a perv.
Even if he didn't do it, he's a perv for life.
That is a bit harsh Fenster.
Without a doubt. But it's the world we live in. It's pretty brutal if you are in the public eye. People are expected to behave like saints. I'd be on the front page of the Mail every day if I were famous.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
Having clear aims also makes it easier to see when you have failed. I wonder if the DUP will still like the taste of a full English Brexit this time next week.
The DUP will not be too troubled by the risk of economic crisis in the mainland UK.
They'll be troubled by the inevitable concessions to the EU to protect the Good Friday Agreement. Calling a bluff is an easier call with a larger union standing behind you.
The DUP has a different definition of inevitable from you.
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.
This is exactly this which leaves such a sour taste - Green may or may not (and I rather doubt we'll ever know for sure) have been breaking one rule or other, but to suggest that this justifies the police to contravene their own rules in so blatant a manner just doesn't fly.
Particularly as this is all the fruit of what was at the time an entirely dodgy operation.
Theresa May has plunged to her lowest leadership ratings yet, with just a third of the public satisfied with her, an exclusive poll reveals today.
At the same time, the Conservatives are scoring worse than when David Cameron was in government for being “divided”, “fit to govern” or offering a “good team of leaders”.
The findings by pollsters Ipsos MORI come after a disastrous party conference speech, two Cabinet resignations, sex scandals and Tory warfare over Brexit.
Labour’s image has improved over the past year, found the researchers, but Jeremy Corbyn’s team has similar ratings to Ed Miliband’s and are behind the Conservatives on the fit-to-govern question.
Key findings reveal:
Optimism about the economy has plunged to the lowest since 2011. A clear majority, 58 per cent, think things will get worse in the year ahead.
The Prime Minister’s ratings have hit rock bottom, with 32 per cent satisfied with her performance (down five) and 59 per cent dissatisfied (up 6), a net rating of minus-27.
Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings have declined, with 42 per cent satisfied (unchanged) and 49 per cent dissatisfied (+4), or -7 overall.
Three quarters of the public see the Tories as divided. The worst score when Mr Cameron was PM was 68 per cent in 2013.
Only 27 per cent think the Conservatives offer a good team of leaders, compared with the Cameron era’s lowest score of 36 per cent in 2012.
Fewer than half (43 per cent) say the Conservatives are fit to govern. Cameron’s worst score as PM was 46 per cent in 2012.
Only 38 per cent think Labour are fit to govern, while just 31 per cent think they offer a good team of leaders. The party is seen as divided by 62 per cent.
Labour has a slim two-point lead, unchanged since last month, which suggests the next general election is wide open. The parties stand at: Conservatives, 37 per cent (-1); Labour, 39 (-1); Lib Dems nine (NC); Green four (+1) and UKIP on four (NC).
Tbh, I think that's a consequence of Brexit. Once we get to 2019 the "divided" figure will improve automatically because it will all be done.
Nope, because we will be bogged down in feuds over transition, immigration and trade.
Brexit is not going to resolve the cultural divide over nationalism vs internationalism either within the country or within the Conservative Party. It is at the core of how we reform as a country.
On topic, the DUP have the huge advantage of being very clear what their aims are. By the time the government has worked out what its aims are, it will have been painted into a corner.
Having clear aims also makes it easier to see when you have failed. I wonder if the DUP will still like the taste of a full English Brexit this time next week.
The DUP will not be too troubled by the risk of economic crisis in the mainland UK.
They'll be troubled by the inevitable concessions to the EU to protect the Good Friday Agreement. Calling a bluff is an easier call with a larger union standing behind you.
The DUP has a different definition of inevitable from you.
I was told last week that the Good Friday Agreement prohibits any law being passed in NI which conflicts with EU law. I don't know if this is correct but if it is it does present something of an obstacle to any regulatory divergence between the EU and NI.
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.
It also doesn't affect individual liberties; I have no problem with airports being subject to international treaty obligations, but have every problem with my government surrendering powers over my British constitutional freedoms to foreign powers, even those we are part of.
Nope, because we will be bogged down in feuds over transition, immigration and trade.
Brexit is not going to resolve the cultural divide over nationalism vs internationalism either within the country or within the Conservative Party. It is at the core of how we reform as a country.
Once we're out of the EU all of those other arguments are going to seem very small indeed. Right now we have multiple factions within the party, one which wants to subvert the vote and remain in the EU without having a second vote, one which wants a second vote to reverse the first one, one which wants to stay in the single market, one which wants to be detached but still friendly and one which wants completely out. All of them are opposed to the others. After Brexit only the two extreme views will still cause issues, and the completely out group will just get on with life, only the remain faction will continue their campaign and turn it into a rejoin one.
After Brexit the party will look a lot more united. On the core issue of globalist vs nationalist, you are correct, but that's an issue the public is split on, as we saw during the vote.
Theresa May has plunged to her lowest leadership ratings yet, with just a third of the public satisfied with her, an exclusive poll reveals today.
At the same time, the Conservatives are scoring worse than when David Cameron was in government for being “divided”, “fit to govern” or offering a “good team of leaders”.
The findings by pollsters Ipsos MORI come after a disastrous party conference speech, two Cabinet resignations, sex scandals and Tory warfare over Brexit.
Labour’s image has improved over the past year, found the researchers, but Jeremy Corbyn’s team has similar ratings to Ed Miliband’s and are behind the Conservatives on the fit-to-govern question.
Key findings reveal:
Optimism about the economy has plunged to the lowest since 2011. A clear majority, 58 per cent, think things will get worse in the year ahead.
The Prime Minister’s ratings have hit rock bottom, with 32 per cent satisfied with her performance (down five) and 59 per cent dissatisfied (up 6), a net rating of minus-27.
Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings have declined, with 42 per cent satisfied (unchanged) and 49 per cent dissatisfied (+4), or -7 overall.
Three quarters of the public see the Tories as divided. The worst score when Mr Cameron was PM was 68 per cent in 2013.
Only 27 per cent think the Conservatives offer a good team of leaders, compared with the Cameron era’s lowest score of 36 per cent in 2012.
Fewer than half (43 per cent) say the Conservatives are fit to govern. Cameron’s worst score as PM was 46 per cent in 2012.
Only 38 per cent think Labour are fit to govern, while just 31 per cent think they offer a good team of leaders. The party is seen as divided by 62 per cent.
Labour has a slim two-point lead, unchanged since last month, which suggests the next general election is wide open. The parties stand at: Conservatives, 37 per cent (-1); Labour, 39 (-1); Lib Dems nine (NC); Green four (+1) and UKIP on four (NC).
Tbh, I think that's a consequence of Brexit. Once we get to 2019 the "divided" figure will improve automatically because it will all be done.
Nope, because we will be bogged down in feuds over transition, immigration and trade.
Brexit is not going to resolve the cultural divide over nationalism vs internationalism either within the country or within the Conservative Party. It is at the core of how we reform as a country.
Precisely. If we go into a transition period the divide will be about what kind of agreement we want at the end of the transition. The hard Brexiteers will still want a clean break whilst the others will want EEA or something close to it.
I dunno where you've worked, but every place I've worked at during the internet age absolutely has a internet usage policy, and yep, at every one, someone has ended up disciplined for inappropriate content being used. As I say, getting caught looking at dodgy stuff on my mobile would be iffy as well!
Same here, I've had to dismiss two people for misusing work devices/the internet.
One for repeatedly looking at mucky stuff, another for stalking an ex.
One place I worked at even blocked PB as mucky stuff.
My local authority's filter blocked PB under the category "gambling". I had to argue that the site didn't involve any gambling and was one of the leading political discussion sites that all councillors could learn from, to get a specific exemption introduced for this site. It helped that I was the Cabinet member responsible for IT policy at the time.
I'll bet it did. Mine even blocks access via the public network (for the lobby, cafe and library ) but fortunately the vanilla forums slip through. Unless there's profanity.
Nevertheless, formally at least, it wasn't my decision. The exemption is still in place and applies to all PCs including public access ones in libraries. It needs someone (or the right person, I guess) to make a fuss. As the IT guys in here will know better than I, these filters can be crude in applying their set of rules.
Very true. What happens in practice is that the firewall companies produce a standard list of categories of websites, that the company or organisation can then modify as they see fit, allowing or banning sites as they come to the administator’s attention. Websites themselves are downloaded first to a ‘proxy server’ then passed onto the user, the proxy can additionally block individual pages based on words or phrases or content (people here have complained for example that Vanilla pages with a f-word in a comment get blocked). The email server also has rules for language, recipients and attachments.
This setup allows rules for user behaviours but just as importantly blocks anything malicious like a virus before it gets to the users’ computers.
To manage this all properly for a few hundred people is pretty much someone’s full time job, as well as the helpdesk dealing with exception requests (someone has a business case to need access to YouTube for a couple of days), email attachments stuck in quarantine, updating black lists and white lists, Scunthorpe problems etc etc.
The DuP has the additional potential upside that a 2018 election would probably sink the boundary review, which doesn't look at all favourable for them. On the other hand they might lose any of the Tory bribe that isn't nailed down by then, and lose their leverage going forward, depending on the outcome.
In their position I would think carefully before giving up a once-in-history chance to hold the government to ransom for five years. I imagine they expect the Tories to blink first.
Off topic, surely the DUP will use the leverage to get the Tories to accept that the boundary review never happens?
Brexit is not going to resolve the cultural divide over nationalism vs internationalism either within the country or within the Conservative Party. It is at the core of how we reform as a country.
Not only will Brexit not resolve it, Brexit is irrelevant to it. The EU doesn't sit conveniently on one side of the somewhere/anywhere divide.
Does the government issue laptops? I thought MP's bought their own but had a right to claim expenses? There is a subtle difference, in that anything bought by the MP might have some personal use but is allowed under the expenses rules so long as it assists them in doing their parliamentary job.
You're correct. That said, the rules are confusing. Before the expenses scandal, I applied for the cost (£50) of a weekly sub to a Danish newspaper, on the basis that I was a member of the European Affairs Select Committee at the time and as I read Danish it would enable me to give input on occasion that other members might not know about. But I scrupulously told them that to be honest I would read it for interest too. The response was that it was not allowable, since I'd admitted that it would be partly for enjoyment - they explicitly said that if I'd not volunteered that information it would have gone through, but "rules are rules, sorry".
Fair enough, maybe, but you can imagine my irritation when the scandal broke and it turned out that people were getting claims for giant TVs, luxury rugs etc. approved. I felt, and still feel, that personal enjoyment of things used for work purposes should not be a bar to their being paid - the test should be whether the things are useful for work and available whenever the work is being done.
Does the government issue laptops? I thought MP's bought their own but had a right to claim expenses? There is a subtle difference, in that anything bought by the MP might have some personal use but is allowed under the expenses rules so long as it assists them in doing their parliamentary job.
You're correct. That said, the rules are confusing. Before the expenses scandal, I applied for the cost (£50) of a weekly sub to a Danish newspaper, on the basis that I was a member of the European Affairs Select Committee at the time and as I read Danish it would enable me to give input on occasion that other members might not know about. But I scrupulously told them that to be honest I would read it for interest too. The response was that it was not allowable, since I'd admitted that it would be partly for enjoyment - they explicitly said that if I'd not volunteered that information it would have gone through, but "rules are rules, sorry".
Fair enough, maybe, but you can imagine my irritation when the scandal broke and it turned out that people were getting claims for giant TVs, luxury rugs etc. approved. I felt, and still feel, that personal enjoyment of things used for work purposes should not be a bar to their being paid - the test should be whether the things are useful for work and available whenever the work is being done.
If the government test for the rest of us is "wholly, necessarily and exclusively", that seems a reasonable test for MPs too.
Uncomfortable as it is for Damian Green, the police authorities and possibly the CPS need to throw the book at Neil Lewis to make it clear that breaching confidentiality in pursuit of an agenda against an individual is not tolerated.
CONFIDENTIALITY I will treat information with respect, and access or disclose it only in the proper course of my duties.
According to this standard you must: • be familiar with and abide by the data protection principles described in the Data Protection Act 1998 • access police-held information for a legitimate or authorised policing purpose only • not disclose information, on or off duty, to unauthorised recipients • understand that by accessing personal data without authorisation you could be committing a criminal offence, regardless of whether you then disclose that personal data
It also goes against Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Policing when the London force was set up. The point is,this is core policing principles and Neil Lewis is sticking two fingers at them.
Unfortunately for the authorities, and maybe the retired Mr Lewis has decided, fortunate for himself, their main sanction is to dismiss anyone found to have been found to have breached this code of ethics.
There are criminal sanctions for unauthorised and illegitimate release of confidential information. In particular the Police Act 1996. Sanctions are fines rather than prison sentences.
The DuP has the additional potential upside that a 2018 election would probably sink the boundary review, which doesn't look at all favourable for them. On the other hand they might lose any of the Tory bribe that isn't nailed down by then, and lose their leverage going forward, depending on the outcome.
In their position I would think carefully before giving up a once-in-history chance to hold the government to ransom for five years. I imagine they expect the Tories to blink first.
Off topic, surely the DUP will use the leverage to get the Tories to accept that the boundary review never happens?
I'd say the review will be scuppered by disgruntled Tories whose seats will disappear - the DUP's view will be incidental.
Don't forget, Brown altered financial oversight which worked very well, flogged off gold at a low price, gave us a deficit in a boom and the worst recession in history, as well as reneging on a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
May's rubbish. But she has some way to go to equal Brown, whose 'achievements' came with a golden economic inheritance from the Conservatives and a strong majority inherited from Blair.
I had to argue that the site didn't involve any gambling and was one of the leading political discussion sites that all councillors could learn from, to get a specific exemption introduced for this site.
It doesn't happen very often but Mike should probably step up the moderation a bit to make sure nobody posts anything on-topic.
The DuP has the additional potential upside that a 2018 election would probably sink the boundary review, which doesn't look at all favourable for them. On the other hand they might lose any of the Tory bribe that isn't nailed down by then, and lose their leverage going forward, depending on the outcome.
In their position I would think carefully before giving up a once-in-history chance to hold the government to ransom for five years. I imagine they expect the Tories to blink first.
Off topic, surely the DUP will use the leverage to get the Tories to accept that the boundary review never happens?
I'd say the review will be scuppered by disgruntled Tories whose seats will disappear - the DUP's view will be incidental.
It would have been doable with retirements and ermine, if it weren’t for all the MEPs about to be made redundant. Although IMO the boundary reviews shouldn’t be for MPs to get involved with, they should happen automatically as Statutory Instruments.
Bring back Dave and the Tories will win a majority once again.
When will he get the chance to return to the Commons? It woukd no doubt be after we'd left.
But he doesn't seem keen.
I've been urging him to come back.
Alas his view is that once you've been rejected by the electorate then it's over and you shouldn't come back.
I’m sure Dave would be welcomed back by the party if he wished to return. He’s still got 20 years of career time left in him and could make a huge further contribution to government and political life.
North (Maidstone): LDEM: 51.4% (+20.0) Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative Torrington (Torridge): LDEM: 60.2% (+60.2) Liberal Democrat GAIN from UKIP Bridgemary North (Gosport): LDEM: 57.9% (+57.9) Liberal Democrat GAIN from Labour. Westway (Tandridge): LDEM: 53.5% (+17.5) Liberal Democrat HOLD
Bring back Dave and the Tories will win a majority once again.
When will he get the chance to return to the Commons? It woukd no doubt be after we'd left.
But he doesn't seem keen.
I've been urging him to come back.
Alas his view is that once you've been rejected by the electorate then it's over and you shouldn't come back.
I’m sure Dave would be welcomed back by the party if he wished to return. He’s still got 20 years of career time left in him and could make a huge further contribution to government and political life.
TCO, on the other hand, not so much.
The acronym TCO is very handy. It's an infallible self-identifier of the Conservative party's nutjobs.
North (Maidstone): LDEM: 51.4% (+20.0) Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative Torrington (Torridge): LDEM: 60.2% (+60.2) Liberal Democrat GAIN from UKIP Bridgemary North (Gosport): LDEM: 57.9% (+57.9) Liberal Democrat GAIN from Labour. Westway (Tandridge): LDEM: 53.5% (+17.5) Liberal Democrat HOLD
Vince's message to the troops on the eve of the next election:
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare to save your deposits."
Comments
It’s pretty easy to tell from log files if someone did indeed click on a link, or if they’re an habitual porn watcher. A decade ago it was also much easier to come across this stuff by accident than it is now, filtering and monitoring of systems and networks has improved markedly in that time frame.
Though I think public opinion, in as much as it is interested in these issues, will take a dim view of Green's behaviour and not care too much about how it came into the public domain.
I'm in favour of most jobs sacking people for such things, but I do think in all fairness that MPs are different due to being elected. They cannot be fired even if they commit a criminal offence if the sentence is low ebough, unless it's electoral fraud, so resignation for a breach like thus seems extreme.
It's less of a problem nowadays, when most people have their own smartphones and tablets, than it was in the day when having a portable computer was a novelty and people got things from their company that they otherwise wouldn't have had.
Remaining under the auspices of the CJEU is an insult to democracy.
It is very positive that orders for plant and machinery were the highest in twenty years. Of course, we don't know where those investment goods were bound, but still.
In terms of EASA (per @TSE), I don't mind at all, ditto Euratom or Erasmus. Sovereignty is a strange beast, n'est ce pas?
One for repeatedly looking at mucky stuff, another for stalking an ex.
Even if he didn't do it, he's a perv for life.
Coincidence I'm sure.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/936281517319512066
Zhuge didn't have enough men to defend the city he was in, so he sat above the battlements by himself, playing a zither. Sima Yi looked at the situation and decided to retreat.
Naturally I appealed and an investigation ensued. It turned out that somebody had sent a link to a "funny" joke on a site that, if you left the browser idle on it for five or more minutes, it would auto forward you to the front page of a porn site for the ad revenue.
Me being me, I have about a hundred browser tabs open every day, and hardly ever bother closing tabs until I shut down the computer or close tabs en masse, so I never noticed the porn site. But to IT it looked as if I had been on bigjugs.whatever for an entire day!
Which would have been very hard (no pun intended) as my desk was in the middle of a very busy open plan office. I was exonerated, but the presumption of guilt said employer had when they pulled me up has stuck with me to this day.
To win the 6 Nations Grand Slam, Wales needed to beat Ireland at home. We printed and delivered the programmes on the Friday before the big game.
We then had a complaint from the Welsh Rugby Union on the following Monday that somebody had been selling Wales v Ireland Grand Slam programmes on Ebay on the Friday night, listing them as 'untouched - limited edition'.
Turned out it was then guy who printed them. He'd been uploading them on an office computer! Trying to make some cash, selling the progs under his own name.
The WRU were cool about it (possibly because Wales won and the sun was out) and the printer kept his job. But it was a dumb-ass thing to do.
The same paperwork/digital processes could be used for import tariff borderes between NI and Ireland (and between England and France etc). No need for a physical border.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
At the same time, the Conservatives are scoring worse than when David Cameron was in government for being “divided”, “fit to govern” or offering a “good team of leaders”.
The findings by pollsters Ipsos MORI come after a disastrous party conference speech, two Cabinet resignations, sex scandals and Tory warfare over Brexit.
Labour’s image has improved over the past year, found the researchers, but Jeremy Corbyn’s team has similar ratings to Ed Miliband’s and are behind the Conservatives on the fit-to-govern question.
Key findings reveal:
Optimism about the economy has plunged to the lowest since 2011. A clear majority, 58 per cent, think things will get worse in the year ahead.
The Prime Minister’s ratings have hit rock bottom, with 32 per cent satisfied with her performance (down five) and 59 per cent dissatisfied (up 6), a net rating of minus-27.
Jeremy Corbyn’s ratings have declined, with 42 per cent satisfied (unchanged) and 49 per cent dissatisfied (+4), or -7 overall.
Three quarters of the public see the Tories as divided. The worst score when Mr Cameron was PM was 68 per cent in 2013.
Only 27 per cent think the Conservatives offer a good team of leaders, compared with the Cameron era’s lowest score of 36 per cent in 2012.
Fewer than half (43 per cent) say the Conservatives are fit to govern. Cameron’s worst score as PM was 46 per cent in 2012.
Only 38 per cent think Labour are fit to govern, while just 31 per cent think they offer a good team of leaders. The party is seen as divided by 62 per cent.
Labour has a slim two-point lead, unchanged since last month, which suggests the next general election is wide open. The parties stand at: Conservatives, 37 per cent (-1); Labour, 39 (-1); Lib Dems nine (NC); Green four (+1) and UKIP on four (NC).
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-leadership-rating-plunges-to-rock-bottom-a3707101.html
It's pretty brutal if you are in the public eye. People are expected to behave like saints.
I'd be on the front page of the Mail every day if I were famous.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/09/03/what-would-the-met-get-for-not-pursuing-notw-phone-hacking/
And
http://antagonise.blogspot.co.uk/2005/08/jean-charles-de-menezes-murder-lies.html?m=1
All these lurid details spread around to discredit Green and back the police up.
But he doesn't seem keen.
Particularly as this is all the fruit of what was at the time an entirely dodgy operation.
Brexit is not going to resolve the cultural divide over nationalism vs internationalism either within the country or within the Conservative Party. It is at the core of how we reform as a country.
Remainers would have been threatening violence if the result wasn't honoured.
Alas his view is that once you've been rejected by the electorate then it's over and you shouldn't come back.
After Brexit the party will look a lot more united. On the core issue of globalist vs nationalist, you are correct, but that's an issue the public is split on, as we saw during the vote.
This setup allows rules for user behaviours but just as importantly blocks anything malicious like a virus before it gets to the users’ computers.
To manage this all properly for a few hundred people is pretty much someone’s full time job, as well as the helpdesk dealing with exception requests (someone has a business case to need access to YouTube for a couple of days), email attachments stuck in quarantine, updating black lists and white lists, Scunthorpe problems etc etc.
In their position I would think carefully before giving up a once-in-history chance to hold the government to ransom for five years. I imagine they expect the Tories to blink first.
Off topic, surely the DUP will use the leverage to get the Tories to accept that the boundary review never happens?
Fair enough, maybe, but you can imagine my irritation when the scandal broke and it turned out that people were getting claims for giant TVs, luxury rugs etc. approved. I felt, and still feel, that personal enjoyment of things used for work purposes should not be a bar to their being paid - the test should be whether the things are useful for work and available whenever the work is being done.
I have a 50% chance of reaching 90, an 11% chance of reaching 100 & a 10% chance of dying before pension age.
https://visual.ons.gov.uk/what-is-my-life-expectancy-and-how-might-it-change/
The Police Code of Ethics says this:
CONFIDENTIALITY I will treat information with respect, and access or disclose it only in the proper course of my duties.
According to this standard you must:
• be familiar with and abide by the data protection principles described in the Data Protection Act 1998
• access police-held information for a legitimate or authorised policing purpose only
• not disclose information, on or off duty, to unauthorised recipients
• understand that by accessing personal data without authorisation you could be committing a criminal offence, regardless of whether you then disclose that personal data
It also goes against Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Policing when the London force was set up. The point is,this is core policing principles and Neil Lewis is sticking two fingers at them.
Unfortunately for the authorities, and maybe the retired Mr Lewis has decided, fortunate for himself, their main sanction is to dismiss anyone found to have been found to have breached this code of ethics.
There are criminal sanctions for unauthorised and illegitimate release of confidential information. In particular the Police Act 1996. Sanctions are fines rather than prison sentences.
What is the matter with Sheffield?
http://www.citymetric.com/business/what-s-matter-sheffield-3528
Don't forget, Brown altered financial oversight which worked very well, flogged off gold at a low price, gave us a deficit in a boom and the worst recession in history, as well as reneging on a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
May's rubbish. But she has some way to go to equal Brown, whose 'achievements' came with a golden economic inheritance from the Conservatives and a strong majority inherited from Blair.
I have always considered persistance as a positive character trait.
Why isn't "your life expectancy" where the line crosses 50%?
TCO, on the other hand, not so much.
North (Maidstone): LDEM: 51.4% (+20.0) Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative
Torrington (Torridge): LDEM: 60.2% (+60.2) Liberal Democrat GAIN from UKIP
Bridgemary North (Gosport): LDEM: 57.9% (+57.9) Liberal Democrat GAIN from Labour.
Westway (Tandridge): LDEM: 53.5% (+17.5) Liberal Democrat HOLD
Life expectancy 85,
25% chance of 93,
10% chance of 97,
4.8% chance of 100
Better get out enjoying myself!
On the to do list:
Decent links to Leeds and Manchester; widening of the main Parkway artery into the centre.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/936538212285255680
"Go back to your constituencies and prepare to save your deposits."