I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
No that is incorrect. Bailey was reported as saying it was a Senior Party official.
Is there any allegation that more than a single individual gave her inappropriate advice. The difference between a single individual and a systematic cover up is quite an important distinction.
I am concerned that my own party has been very poor at this field, particularly in regard to Chris Rennard.
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).
By contrastfor the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
The allegation is incredibly serious (rape at a party event, followed by party-inspired cover-up).
Perhaps many of us are a little sceptical that an internal party inquiry is the right vehicle.
The Labour Party is investigating itself, and traditionally when an organisation investigates itself, it finds it did no wrong.
Given the gravity of the accusations, this needed an independent inquiry. What are the police not investigating? I expect accusations of rape to be looked into by the police.
Curiously, the hapless Mr Green (who may or may not have downloaded porn) is getting an independent inquiry. And the police (or ex-coppers) have been more than assiduous to add their pennyworth in what is not even a crime.
I think the Bex Bailwy allegation is very serious, but it was reported two years later, and from what I have seen in her interviews, was reported to a single person, who advised wrongly to take it no further. I dont think that there was an allegation odf anyone else being part of a cover up.
Labour have suspended a few people for suspected sexual impropriety (? possibly related) and there are allegedly a couple of deaths as a result. Certainly the Welsh one was all over the news for days.
Members of both parties have been pilloried in the press, so it seems to me that the press interest in these allegations has been fairly evenly balanced.
You are as usual deliberately missing the point.
It was not a single person, it was a Labour party official.
The rape took place at a Labour party event.
If you can't understand that the Labour party has a duty of care to women attending events held under its auspices, if you can't understand that a Labour Party official acts on behalf of, and as a representative of, the Labour party, there is no hope for you.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
The BBC report gives the description 'senior Labour official' not 'individual party worker'.
Although to be fair to Labour their spokesman said this - "We would strongly recommend that the police investigate the allegations of criminal actions that Bex Bailey has made."
I wonder if plod will do so with the level of commitment they have had regarding Green's computer.
That depends on whether the victim wishes for the police to investigate it.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
The BBC report gives the description 'senior Labour official' not 'individual party worker'.
Although to be fair to Labour their spokesman said this - "We would strongly recommend that the police investigate the allegations of criminal actions that Bex Bailey has made."
I wonder if plod will do so with the level of commitment they have had regarding Green's computer.
That depends on whether the victim wishes for the police to investigate it.
I don't think that is correct. The police have a duty to investigate if they have reasons to suspect that laws have been broken.
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).
By contrastfor the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
The allegation is incredibly serious (rape at a party event, followed by party-inspired cover-up).
Perhaps many of us are a little sceptical that an internal party inquiry is the right vehicle.
The Labour Party is investigating itself, and traditionally when an organisation investigates itself, it finds it did no wrong.
Given the gravity of the accusations, this needed an independent inquiry. What are the police not investigating? I expect accusations of rape to be looked into by the police.
Curiously, the hapless Mr Green (who may or may not have downloaded porn) is getting an independent inquiry. And the police (or ex-coppers) have been more than assiduous to add their pennyworth in what is not even a crime.
I think the Bex Bailwy allegation is very serious, but it was reported two years later, and from what I have seen in her interviews, was reported to a single person, who advised wrongly to take it no further. I dont think that there was an allegation odf anyone else being part of a cover up.
You are as usual deliberately missing the point.
It was not a single person, it was a Labour party official.
The rape took place at a Labour party event.
If you can't understand that the Labour party has a duty of care to women attending events held under its auspices, if you can't understand that a Labour Party official acts on behalf of, and as a representative of, the Labour party, there is no hope for you.
It certainly is a serious allegation that is being investigated, but whether it was more widely known than a single (albeit senior) official is an important distinction.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
The BBC report gives the description 'senior Labour official' not 'individual party worker'.
Although to be fair to Labour their spokesman said this - "We would strongly recommend that the police investigate the allegations of criminal actions that Bex Bailey has made."
I wonder if plod will do so with the level of commitment they have had regarding Green's computer.
That depends on whether the victim wishes for the police to investigate it.
They've been told a serious crime has happened so they have a duty to investigate.
MP's shouldn't be watching porn on work computers. They should know better. But this is not a police matter.
The problem with watching porn on their work computers is mainly security, since porn sites will often also be used for malicious code.
What Parliament should be doing, since MPs and their staff are obviously going to want to watch porn, is issuing them with another device dedicated to - ahem - research on untrusted websites, or something like that.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
The BBC report gives the description 'senior Labour official' not 'individual party worker'.
Although to be fair to Labour their spokesman said this - "We would strongly recommend that the police investigate the allegations of criminal actions that Bex Bailey has made."
I wonder if plod will do so with the level of commitment they have had regarding Green's computer.
That depends on whether the victim wishes for the police to investigate it.
They've been told a serious crime has happened so they have a duty to investigate.
As only Ms Bailey has any details it surely would not be able to proceed without her input.
Indeed there may very well be such a police investigation underway.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
The BBC report gives the description 'senior Labour official' not 'individual party worker'.
Although to be fair to Labour their spokesman said this - "We would strongly recommend that the police investigate the allegations of criminal actions that Bex Bailey has made."
I wonder if plod will do so with the level of commitment they have had regarding Green's computer.
That depends on whether the victim wishes for the police to investigate it.
No it doesn't. If that was the law, it'd be a licence to threaten and intimidate victims.
As only Ms Bailey has any details it surely would not be able to proceed without her input.
Indeed there may very well be such a police investigation underway.
The rape took place at a Labour party event.
It is not obvious that "only Ms Bailey has any details" -- unless the only people attending the Labour party event were Ms Bailey and the (alleged) rapist.
Might there not be people who attended the event who recall Ms Bailey being distressed, for example?
Am I the only one to detect a contrast between the 'more branch closures as normal' actual bank job losses which happens in prole towns and the 'end of days' wailing of possible City bank job losses ?
As only Ms Bailey has any details it surely would not be able to proceed without her input.
Indeed there may very well be such a police investigation underway.
If Ms Bailey isn't co-operating then all the police can really do is
1) Make sure wasn't under 18 when the incident occurred or the alleged perpetrator wasn't someone in a position of trust. Or that Ms Bailey isn't a vulnerable adult
2) Making sure there's no intimidation/coercion going on.
3) As a general rule the police don't like to give running commentaries on sexually related crime investigation until they make an arrest or bring charges
No it doesn't. If that was the law, it'd be a licence to threaten and intimidate victims.
What if a rape victim doesn't wish to relive the trauma through a full investigation and trial, especially when statistically the chances of conviction are so low, and therefore wishes not to make a formal police complaint? (Not that I'm suggesting that's the case with Bex Bailey, I have no idea.)
As only Ms Bailey has any details it surely would not be able to proceed without her input.
Indeed there may very well be such a police investigation underway.
The rape took place at a Labour party event.
It is not obvious that "only Ms Bailey has any details" -- unless the only people attending the Labour party event were Ms Bailey and the (alleged) rapist.
Might there not be people who attended the event who recall Ms Bailey being distressed, for example?
She said in the interviews that it was two years before she raised it with anyone. If she wanted to make a statement then there may be some witnesses named who could corroborate events.
It is hard to know how the police could proceed without interviewing her first. Maybe they have.
MP's shouldn't be watching porn on work computers. They should know better. But this is not a police matter.
The problem with watching porn on their work computers is mainly security, since porn sites will often also be used for malicious code.
What Parliament should be doing, since MPs and their staff are obviously going to want to watch porn, is issuing them with another device dedicated to - ahem - research on untrusted websites, or something like that.
Wouldn't it be better if the government created its own, approved and malware free, porn site?
MPs could then browse that on their work machines, comfortable in the knowledge there was no security risk.
Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.
Firstly, that's far too draconian. People couldn't even log onto pbc under that rule (!)
But more seriously, the only people who should be able to dismiss a politician from office are his or her electorate or the courts (in practice, his or her party too, though they could still stand as an independent or for another party in that case).
Oh, I don't think any of that should happen! But that would be the precedent that should be set by the current case if it were acceptable. If the police are allowed to release that kind of information about a cabinet minister then they can about anyone.
As only Ms Bailey has any details it surely would not be able to proceed without her input.
Indeed there may very well be such a police investigation underway.
If Ms Bailey isn't co-operating then all the police can really do is
1) Make sure wasn't under 18 when the incident occurred or the alleged perpetrator wasn't someone in a position of trust. Or that Ms Bailey isn't a vulnerable adult
2) Making sure there's no intimidation/coercion going on.
3) As a general rule the police don't like to give running commentaries on sexually related crime investigation until they make an arrest or bring charges
And (3) is where plod has lost trust because of the Green story.
Not to mention related issues for example Cliff Richard and Andrew Mitchell.
Am I the only one to detect a contrast between the 'more branch closures as normal' actual bank job losses which happens in prole towns and the 'end of days' wailing of possible City bank job losses ?
No it doesn't. If that was the law, it'd be a licence to threaten and intimidate victims.
What if a rape victim doesn't wish to relive the trauma through a full investigation and trial, especially when statistically the chances of conviction are so low, and therefore wishes not to make a formal police complaint? (Not that I'm suggesting that's the case with Bex Bailey, I have no idea.)
Surely you can see that there's a difference between not being able to take a case forward because of practical constraints, and not being able to take one forward because a potential victim had a veto?
MP's shouldn't be watching porn on work computers. They should know better. But this is not a police matter.
The problem with watching porn on their work computers is mainly security, since porn sites will often also be used for malicious code.
What Parliament should be doing, since MPs and their staff are obviously going to want to watch porn, is issuing them with another device dedicated to - ahem - research on untrusted websites, or something like that.
Wouldn't it be better if the government created its own, approved and malware free, porn site?
MPs could then browse that on their work machines, comfortable in the knowledge there was no security risk.
Now that is a vote winner. Perhaps it should be viewable by all taxpayers as a National Porn Service*.
Am I the only one to detect a contrast between the 'more branch closures as normal' actual bank job losses which happens in prole towns and the 'end of days' wailing of possible City bank job losses ?
No it doesn't. If that was the law, it'd be a licence to threaten and intimidate victims.
What if a rape victim doesn't wish to relive the trauma through a full investigation and trial, especially when statistically the chances of conviction are so low, and therefore wishes not to make a formal police complaint? (Not that I'm suggesting that's the case with Bex Bailey, I have no idea.)
Surely you can see that there's a difference between not being able to take a case forward because of practical constraints, and not being able to take one forward because a potential victim had a veto?
I get the distinction, but surely in a historical case, it comes to the same.
Am I the only one to detect a contrast between the 'more branch closures as normal' actual bank job losses which happens in prole towns and the 'end of days' wailing of possible City bank job losses ?
The City jobs are far more valuable to the economy than a few bank tellers
You sound a bit snooty about it. Frankly, a few people aren't going to be that important to the entire national economy no matter what they do. I think that another_richard was thinking more in terms of equality of misery but inequality of media interest. If one has to choose, it's probably better to be a major market trader temporarily out of a job than a bank teller.
Am I the only one to detect a contrast between the 'more branch closures as normal' actual bank job losses which happens in prole towns and the 'end of days' wailing of possible City bank job losses ?
The City jobs are far more valuable to the economy than a few bank tellers
You sound a bit snooty about it. Frankly, a few people aren't going to be that important to the entire national economy no matter what they do. I think that another_richard was thinking more in terms of equality of misery but inequality of media interest. If one has to choose, it's probably better to be a major market trader temporarily out of a job than a bank teller.
I dont know if you saw this interesting piece on how few new jobs are created after automation:
Am I the only one to detect a contrast between the 'more branch closures as normal' actual bank job losses which happens in prole towns and the 'end of days' wailing of possible City bank job losses ?
The City jobs are far more valuable to the economy than a few bank tellers
You sound a bit snooty about it. Frankly, a few people aren't going to be that important to the entire national economy no matter what they do. I think that another_richard was thinking more in terms of equality of misery but inequality of media interest. If one has to choose, it's probably better to be a major market trader temporarily out of a job than a bank teller.
I dont know if you saw this interesting piece on how few new jobs are created after automation:
Am I the only one to detect a contrast between the 'more branch closures as normal' actual bank job losses which happens in prole towns and the 'end of days' wailing of possible City bank job losses ?
The City jobs are far more valuable to the economy than a few bank tellers
You sound a bit snooty about it. Frankly, a few people aren't going to be that important to the entire national economy no matter what they do. I think that another_richard was thinking more in terms of equality of misery but inequality of media interest. If one has to choose, it's probably better to be a major market trader temporarily out of a job than a bank teller.
I dont know if you saw this interesting piece on how few new jobs are created after automation:
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
The BBC report gives the description 'senior Labour official' not 'individual party worker'.
Although to be fair to Labour their spokesman said this - "We would strongly recommend that the police investigate the allegations of criminal actions that Bex Bailey has made."
I wonder if plod will do so with the level of commitment they have had regarding Green's computer.
That depends on whether the victim wishes for the police to investigate it.
Who is the victim in the Green case then? When the porn supposedly found on his computer was, by police admission, not illegal?
Am I the only one to detect a contrast between the 'more branch closures as normal' actual bank job losses which happens in prole towns and the 'end of days' wailing of possible City bank job losses ?
The City jobs are far more valuable to the economy than a few bank tellers
You sound a bit snooty about it. Frankly, a few people aren't going to be that important to the entire national economy no matter what they do. I think that another_richard was thinking more in terms of equality of misery but inequality of media interest. If one has to choose, it's probably better to be a major market trader temporarily out of a job than a bank teller.
I dont know if you saw this interesting piece on how few new jobs are created after automation:
Comments
I am concerned that my own party has been very poor at this field, particularly in regard to Chris Rennard.
It was not a single person, it was a Labour party official.
The rape took place at a Labour party event.
If you can't understand that the Labour party has a duty of care to women attending events held under its auspices, if you can't understand that a Labour Party official acts on behalf of, and as a representative of, the Labour party, there is no hope for you.
What Parliament should be doing, since MPs and their staff are obviously going to want to watch porn, is issuing them with another device dedicated to - ahem - research on untrusted websites, or something like that.
Indeed there may very well be such a police investigation underway.
It is not obvious that "only Ms Bailey has any details" -- unless the only people attending the Labour party event were Ms Bailey and the (alleged) rapist.
Might there not be people who attended the event who recall Ms Bailey being distressed, for example?
1) Make sure wasn't under 18 when the incident occurred or the alleged perpetrator wasn't someone in a position of trust. Or that Ms Bailey isn't a vulnerable adult
2) Making sure there's no intimidation/coercion going on.
3) As a general rule the police don't like to give running commentaries on sexually related crime investigation until they make an arrest or bring charges
It is hard to know how the police could proceed without interviewing her first. Maybe they have.
MPs could then browse that on their work machines, comfortable in the knowledge there was no security risk.
Not to mention related issues for example Cliff Richard and Andrew Mitchell.
*entirely PC, consensual porno, of course.
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-meets-ex-trump-adviser-steve-bannon/
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/933946944996757504
https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/936683393072488449
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/01/donald-trump-theresa-may-special-relationship-hate-filled-tweets
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912
The other thing automation is obsoleting is our politics.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/0*4illfcThvLB1MTVS.png
79-89: Less low skilled, more high skilled
07-12: More low skilled, less high skilled
... I think.
Bold captaincy.... in the Yes Minister sense.