Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What now for Damian Green?

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited December 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What now for Damian Green?

A sacked, anti-authoritarian Remainer with all the dirt on No10 on the backbenches. What could possibly go wrong?

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,827
    First
  • 2nd. Morning all.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,984
    Re Green, circumstances of police action at his Commons office in 2008 were oddly unique. Police leaks re contents found on his computer this autumn unusual if not bordering on illegal, his explanation about contents of contorted.

    Are tickets to Quick v Green selling fast?
  • This reminds me of the story of two friends who fell out.

    Pissed off friend told the other friend’s girlfriend all the things her beau got up to at university.

    Messy.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,584
    Second - yes, as Richard Nabavi observed, May's letter was phrased to make it clear that she was sacking him, and if he'd been offered the chance to resign voluntarily he wasn't taking it. Veryunusual - and I think he's not yet published a response? I wonder if the timing was partly to make it harder to fight back - MPs are off on holiday, people are not paying much attntion.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,573
    edited December 2017
    3rd. Morning All. Bit of a heatwave here in Sussex 10deg C
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,845
    I would guess that his "not going quietly" will cause more trouble for the Police than the Prime Minister.

    BTW has it been revealed why he was contacted by the police about the issue in 2013?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,038
    Isn't the most likely consequence of this another potential rebel on Credit votes ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,038
    Brexit*
  • Who will replace Green?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,584
    Correction - his reply has been published. Polite but doesn't really discuss the resignation/sacking.
  • This sums up 2017.

    Who’d have thought Sir Michael Fallon and Damian Green would have resigned over sexual scandals before Boris Johnson?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    dr_spyn said:

    Re Green, circumstances of police action at his Commons office in 2008 were oddly unique. Police leaks re contents found on his computer this autumn unusual if not bordering on illegal, his explanation about contents of contorted.

    Are tickets to Quick v Green selling fast?

    +1
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,559
    edited December 2017
    Keir Starmer, now Shadow Minister for keeping Labour's Brexit plates spinning, was DPP at the time police were said to have consulted the DPP about what they found. For Green, and indeed May, the known unknown is what Starmer knows.
  • ‪I see Jeremy Hunt has got Green’s old job of doing the media rounds. ‬

  • Keir Starmer, now Shadow Minister for something-or-other to do with Brexit, was DPP at the time police were said to have consulted the DPP about what they found. For Green, and indeed May, the known unknown is what Starmer knows.

    But the code of conduct and the law would prevent Sir Keir from sharing that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540

    Second - yes, as Richard Nabavi observed, May's letter was phrased to make it clear that she was sacking him, and if he'd been offered the chance to resign voluntarily he wasn't taking it. Veryunusual - and I think he's not yet published a response? I wonder if the timing was partly to make it harder to fight back - MPs are off on holiday, people are not paying much attntion.

    The form of words was different to the letters exchanged with Priti Patel, it’s much clearer that Green was sacked rather than choosing to go. I imagine he feels he’s been fitted up, and as @alex. notes below he’s unlikely to drop his criticism of the retired police officers now he is no longer a minister.
  • It looks as though he is not going to go quietly that has the potential to cause many problems for the government and Mrs May.

    Of course Mr Green may have problems with Bob Quick, who may have problems with the law...
  • Keir Starmer, now Shadow Minister for something-or-other to do with Brexit, was DPP at the time police were said to have consulted the DPP about what they found. For Green, and indeed May, the known unknown is what Starmer knows.

    But the code of conduct and the law would prevent Sir Keir from sharing that.
    Hasn’t stopped the plod.....
  • Keir Starmer, now Shadow Minister for something-or-other to do with Brexit, was DPP at the time police were said to have consulted the DPP about what they found. For Green, and indeed May, the known unknown is what Starmer knows.

    But the code of conduct and the law would prevent Sir Keir from sharing that.
    Hasn’t stopped the plod.....
    I think Sir Keir has a higher standards of ethics than the rozzers.

    Just check out his comments when he announced there would be no charges brought against Green.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,984
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.
  • Keir Starmer, now Shadow Minister for something-or-other to do with Brexit, was DPP at the time police were said to have consulted the DPP about what they found. For Green, and indeed May, the known unknown is what Starmer knows.

    But the code of conduct and the law would prevent Sir Keir from sharing that.
    Hasn’t stopped the plod.....
    I think Sir Keir has a higher standards of ethics than the rozzers.
    .
    I would hope so, they could hardly be lower....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    Looks like the usual remoaners flailing around for bad news for May. - not very festive is it ?

    Green has nobody to blame but himself.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    TGOHF said:

    Looks like the usual remoaners flailing around for bad news for May. - not very festive is it ?

    Green has nobody to blame but himself.

    +1
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Guilty as charged m'Lud , take the "economical with the truth" Tory below.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540

    Keir Starmer, now Shadow Minister for keeping Labour's Brexit plates spinning, was DPP at the time police were said to have consulted the DPP about what they found. For Green, and indeed May, the known unknown is what Starmer knows.

    Yes, I mentioned him when this first blew up a few weeks ago. He would of course be bound by all sorts of rules that prevent him from mentioning anything to do with his time as DPP in his new role as an opposition minister. It would be very serious indeed for him to have played any part in Green’s downfall, he’d better be very clean now that Green has gone.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    edited December 2017

    It looks as though he is not going to go quietly that has the potential to cause many problems for the government and Mrs May.

    Of course Mr Green may have problems with Bob Quick, who may have problems with the law...

    Green ought to admit libel - his admitted lies are going to make defending the suit problematic, and likely expensive - and offer £50 damages. Which is arguably generous given the level of Quick's reputation...

    (Note the lesson of the Mitchell affair.)
  • Keir Starmer, now Shadow Minister for something-or-other to do with Brexit, was DPP at the time police were said to have consulted the DPP about what they found. For Green, and indeed May, the known unknown is what Starmer knows.

    But the code of conduct and the law would prevent Sir Keir from sharing that.
    Hasn’t stopped the plod.....
    I think Sir Keir has a higher standards of ethics than the rozzers.

    Just check out his comments when he announced there would be no charges brought against Green.
    Yes but Starmer's ethics and professionalism make it worse: Green and May know there is an Opposition frontbencher who knows stuff but won't talk about it -- so they can't be 100 per cent sure that what he knows is harmless or that he will not leak later on.
  • Mr. Eagles, bollocks.

    Green didn't go over what the police said, but over his stupidly worded response to it.

    You really think it's acceptable for retired policemen to keep hold of information obtained during but not relevant to investigations from a decade ago, and then for said information to be released to the press?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168

    Keir Starmer, now Shadow Minister for something-or-other to do with Brexit, was DPP at the time police were said to have consulted the DPP about what they found. For Green, and indeed May, the known unknown is what Starmer knows.

    But the code of conduct and the law would prevent Sir Keir from sharing that.
    Hasn’t stopped the plod.....
    I think Sir Keir has a higher standards of ethics than the rozzers.

    Just check out his comments when he announced there would be no charges brought against Green.
    His statement says nothing about the utterly disgraceful search of a parliamentary office.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/apr/16/dpp-keir-starmer-statement-damian-green
  • Tories' righteous anger at the police (or technically, ex-police) should be suppressed. Reflect on Oscar Wilde. Let the story die.
  • Green didn't go over what the police said, but over his stupidly worded response to it.

    +1
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Public interest does not mean public prurience.

    Green had to go for repeatedly lying - but that in no way justifies the police behaviour in this case.
  • Mr. Eagles, bollocks.

    Green didn't go over what the police said, but over his stupidly worded response to it.

    You really think it's acceptable for retired policemen to keep hold of information obtained during but not relevant to investigations from a decade ago, and then for said information to be released to the press?

    No I don’t.

    But that’s how the public interest defence works.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168

    Tories' righteous anger at the police (or technically, ex-police) should be suppressed. Reflect on Oscar Wilde. Let the story die.

    I am not a Tory, and am quite happy to let the story carry on.
    I'm slightly surprised that the LibDems aren't making more play with this (though there is the general uselessness of Vince Cable to take into account).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    As far as the thread header is concerned, Mr Smithson seems to be getting a touch of the Jeremy Corbyns in predicting impending disaster for the government every time something slightly difficult for them occurs...
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    Mr. Eagles, bollocks.

    Green didn't go over what the police said, but over his stupidly worded response to it.

    You really think it's acceptable for retired policemen to keep hold of information obtained during but not relevant to investigations from a decade ago, and then for said information to be released to the press?

    No I don’t.

    But that’s how the public interest defence works.
    There is no public interest defence. Having Porn on his computer is not an 'Offence' against the law. So therefore it is only of Interest to the Public, not in the public interest.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,538

    Tories' righteous anger at the police (or technically, ex-police) should be suppressed. Reflect on Oscar Wilde. Let the story die.

    First the police tried to stitch up Damian Green, and I said nothing because I am not Damian Green...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,827
    TonyE said:

    Mr. Eagles, bollocks.

    Green didn't go over what the police said, but over his stupidly worded response to it.

    You really think it's acceptable for retired policemen to keep hold of information obtained during but not relevant to investigations from a decade ago, and then for said information to be released to the press?

    No I don’t.

    But that’s how the public interest defence works.
    There is no public interest defence. Having Porn on his computer is not an 'Offence' against the law. So therefore it is only of Interest to the Public, not in the public interest.

    And why is it only in the public interest now? If the plod thought it to be that serious they should have released the info in 08.
  • ‪I see Jeremy Hunt has got Green’s old job of doing the media rounds. ‬

    He certainly seemed more than willing to go the extra mile in praising Tessy.

    All sincerely held views without a thought of self advancement I'm sure.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,038
    A friend of mine advised me to mine bitcoin in ~ 2013 or so.

    Obviously I didn't mine or buy any, and I wondered if he was on that carribean island by now...
    friend said:

    I sold 300 bitcoins for £1200. Good times

    Still a lot of moolah, but £1200 was a lot to me when I sold, too, as I'd not long started work. So I don't feel gut-punchingly awful about it.

    But I still feel a bit bad about it.

  • ‪I see Jeremy Hunt has got Green’s old job of doing the media rounds. ‬

    He certainly seemed more than willing to go the extra mile in praising Tessy.

    All sincerely held views without a thought of self advancement I'm sure.

    He’s thinking of my bets.

    Top bloke.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 793
    The matter of ministerial resignations and sackings, not to mention rehabilitations, has always been something that gets seriously distorted by the Westminster bubble and has never really mirrored well the sorts of things that might lead to resignations and sackings in real life, nor the sorts of processes needing to be followed to get there in a professional organisation.

    At an individual level anyone who chooses this career must know it's a brutal business and when the time comes should perhaps just suck it up with their best indignant face.

    At a political level, the victory of perception over process is a drain on talent and a drag on good governance and I do wish Westminster could be more like the world for mid grade corporate employees. Also the 'All equally bad' thinking means that governments can rehabilitate talents who were genuinely dishonest rather than those who might have been unfairly treated - Laws and Mandelson spring to mind.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,130
    Looks like the Car of Peace tour has got to Melbourne. :/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Pulpstar said:

    A friend of mine advised me to mine bitcoin in ~ 2013 or so.

    Obviously I didn't mine or buy any, and I wondered if he was on that carribean island by now...
    friend said:

    I sold 300 bitcoins for £1200. Good times

    Still a lot of moolah, but £1200 was a lot to me when I sold, too, as I'd not long started work. So I don't feel gut-punchingly awful about it.

    But I still feel a bit bad about it.

    Ouch. 300 Bitcoin now worth $5m. But remember that for everyone who’s now a millionaire there are several more that had their life savings deposited in MtGox when they went bust.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,259
    edited December 2017
    Nigelb said:

    As far as the thread header is concerned, Mr Smithson seems to be getting a touch of the Jeremy Corbyns in predicting impending disaster for the government every time something slightly difficult for them occurs...

    Corbyn’s Grazia interview was a face palm moment.
  • Mr. Max, quite. It was a deliberate act, police say, but they can't yet say it was terrorism.

    I do wonder what happened about that black cab driver who did likewise outside a museum in London. If he was just driving dangerously he should've been charged, but I've heard nothing since the Met said it was nothing to do with terrorism.

    Mr. Eagles, if it was in the public interest why wasn't anything said a decade ago? Why did a former senior policeman (forget the name, sadly) appear to say he thought both the two ex-rozzers who had commented were in the wrong?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    This reminds me of the story of two friends who fell out.

    Pissed off friend told the other friend’s girlfriend all the things her beau got up to at university.

    Messy.

    Not everyone thinks like you

    Green's political career is over. Even with a change of PM.

    He can either (I) be vindictive and trouble-making and lash out at his life-long friend, or (2) he can get pissed over Christmas, go on holiday, keep quiet, maintain his friendship with the PM and probably end up with (a) influence and (b) a seat in the House of Lords

    I bet he chooses option 2.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    Scott_P said:
    No: if he was sacked over the porn allegations, not for lying.

    (Why did Green lie? It's not obvious that extra sentence added anything to his defence)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,809
    edited December 2017
    Charles said:

    This reminds me of the story of two friends who fell out.

    Pissed off friend told the other friend’s girlfriend all the things her beau got up to at university.

    Messy.

    Not everyone thinks like you

    Green's political career is over. Even with a change of PM.

    He can either (I) be vindictive and trouble-making and lash out at his life-long friend, or (2) he can get pissed over Christmas, go on holiday, keep quiet, maintain his friendship with the PM and probably end up with (a) influence and (b) a seat in the House of Lords

    I bet he chooses option 2.
    Politics brings out the worst in people when they fall out.

    Cf Sir Geoffrey Howe and Margaret Thatcher and John Major and Norman Lamont.
  • Pulpstar said:

    A friend of mine advised me to mine bitcoin in ~ 2013 or so.

    Obviously I didn't mine or buy any, and I wondered if he was on that carribean island by now...
    friend said:

    I sold 300 bitcoins for £1200. Good times

    Still a lot of moolah, but £1200 was a lot to me when I sold, too, as I'd not long started work. So I don't feel gut-punchingly awful about it.

    But I still feel a bit bad about it.

    Sold a bunch the other day, and put the money in normal investments, since Bitcoin is now a pure ponzi and no longer even pretends to be a useful payment system. (See the detail here: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoin-fees-rising-high/)

    It's impossible to predict this ridiculous market but I wonder if my financial advisor may have called the top:

  • Ishmael_Z said:

    Tories' righteous anger at the police (or technically, ex-police) should be suppressed. Reflect on Oscar Wilde. Let the story die.

    First the police tried to stitch up Damian Green, and I said nothing because I am not Damian Green...
    Hillsborough, Orgreave, suffragettes? Those blokes who have just had rape charges dropped? Stop and search? Sus laws? Damian Green is not the martyr you seek.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Sitting on the evidence for a decade before striking when Grern was weaken. Not a good fact pattern for public interest defence
  • Mr. Eagles, you missed out Caesar and Pompey :p
  • Charles said:

    This reminds me of the story of two friends who fell out.

    Pissed off friend told the other friend’s girlfriend all the things her beau got up to at university.

    Messy.

    Not everyone thinks like you

    Green's political career is over. Even with a change of PM.

    He can either (I) be vindictive and trouble-making and lash out at his life-long friend, or (2) he can get pissed over Christmas, go on holiday, keep quiet, maintain his friendship with the PM and probably end up with (a) influence and (b) a seat in the House of Lords

    I bet he chooses option 2.
    Politics brings out the worst in people when they fall out.

    Cf Sir Geoffrey Howe and Margaret Thatcher and John Major and Norman Lamont.
    He'll go for option 2 and finish up with (a) a hangover and (b) a seat on a plane to somewhere sunny.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168

    Mr. Max, quite. It was a deliberate act, police say, but they can't yet say it was terrorism.

    I do wonder what happened about that black cab driver who did likewise outside a museum in London. If he was just driving dangerously he should've been charged, but I've heard nothing since the Met said it was nothing to do with terrorism.

    Mr. Eagles, if it was in the public interest why wasn't anything said a decade ago? Why did a former senior policeman (forget the name, sadly) appear to say he thought both the two ex-rozzers who had commented were in the wrong?

    Not to mention the current head of the Met:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/04/met-chief-cressida-dick-condemns-former-officers-over-damian-green-claims
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    No: if he was sacked over the porn allegations, not for lying.

    (Why did Green lie? It's not obvious that extra sentence added anything to his defence)
    Natural response to being accused of something that couldn't be proven to a legal standard. Was stupid, but understandable.
  • Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    No: if he was sacked over the porn allegations, not for lying.

    (Why did Green lie? It's not obvious that extra sentence added anything to his defence)
    Didn't you tell me last nite, Charles, that Green didn't lie?

    Hunt says, he lied. Seems to me he lied. Seems to me that's why he has been resigned.

    You telling us different?
  • Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Sitting on the evidence for a decade before striking when Grern was weaken. Not a good fact pattern for public interest defence
    I’m not defending the police.

    I’m just pointing out the reality.

    I generally put Bob Quick in the same circle of hell as Mark Reckless.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,342
    Will there be a libel trial , or after yesterdays events , will it be settled without court proceedings.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,683
    edited December 2017
    On topic, IIUC he wasn't particularly incompetent? If he's independent-minded but not excessively trouble-making this seems like the kind of thing he could come back from. The competition isn't exactly overflowing with talent.

    It might even work in his favour; There's something to be said for being respectably distant from the driver's cab when the Brexit train crashes.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487
    Charles said:

    This reminds me of the story of two friends who fell out.

    Pissed off friend told the other friend’s girlfriend all the things her beau got up to at university.

    Messy.

    Not everyone thinks like you

    Green's political career is over. Even with a change of PM.

    He can either (I) be vindictive and trouble-making and lash out at his life-long friend, or (2) he can get pissed over Christmas, go on holiday, keep quiet, maintain his friendship with the PM and probably end up with (a) influence and (b) a seat in the House of Lords

    I bet he chooses option 2.
    Green's political never started.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938
    Morning all :)

    Well, an unusual start to the day for me as I find myself being impressed by the behaviour of our current Prime Minister.

    Kudos to her for the strict application of the Ministerial Code and affirming that no one, however much an ally, is above said code. Green has been asked to resign/sacked (delete as appropriate) because of his inability to live up to that code based on the Seven Principles of Public Life:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2

    These apply not just to Cabinet members but to local Government officers and the Police. They aren't a bad set of standards to which everyone in the public sector should adhere and May's strong defence of them does her credit. Damian Green, for whatever reason, couldn't live to that code and was found out and had to go.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:

    This reminds me of the story of two friends who fell out.

    Pissed off friend told the other friend’s girlfriend all the things her beau got up to at university.

    Messy.

    Not everyone thinks like you

    Green's political career is over. Even with a change of PM.

    He can either (I) be vindictive and trouble-making and lash out at his life-long friend, or (2) he can get pissed over Christmas, go on holiday, keep quiet, maintain his friendship with the PM and probably end up with (a) influence and (b) a seat in the House of Lords

    I bet he chooses option 2.
    Politics brings out the worst in people when they fall out.

    Cf Sir Geoffrey Howe and Margaret Thatcher and John Major and Norman Lamont.
    But they hadn't been friends for 40 years
  • Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Sitting on the evidence for a decade before striking when Grern was weaken. Not a good fact pattern for public interest defence
    I’m not defending the police.

    I’m just pointing out the reality.

    I generally put Bob Quick in the same circle of hell as Mark Reckless.
    The Plod don't come out of this very well, TSE, but then the Plod aren't running the country. Not supposed to be anyway.

    No sympathy for Green. If he wants to play with his cock he can do it in his own time, and use his own equipment.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    No: if he was sacked over the porn allegations, not for lying.

    (Why did Green lie? It's not obvious that extra sentence added anything to his defence)
    Didn't you tell me last nite, Charles, that Green didn't lie?

    Hunt says, he lied. Seems to me he lied. Seems to me that's why he has been resigned.

    You telling us different?
    Last night you said he lied about the porn. I corrected you - he lied about having been *told* about the porn.

    Important distinction
  • calum said:
    Interesting idea Peston was used as a test
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Sitting on the evidence for a decade before striking when Grern was weaken. Not a good fact pattern for public interest defence
    I’m not defending the police.

    I’m just pointing out the reality.

    I generally put Bob Quick in the same circle of hell as Mark Reckless.
    The Plod don't come out of this very well, TSE, but then the Plod aren't running the country. Not supposed to be anyway.

    No sympathy for Green. If he wants to play with his cock he can do it in his own time, and use his own equipment.
    There is no proof that he was doing either - just that a computer, in his office, had Porn on it. The protections in law against 'Fishing expeditions' are not entirely clear. The warrant was looking for 'leaks' from a government department. Having not found those, the PC should have been returned and no evidence should have been noted about other information on the PC at all.
    That it was, highlights an important failing that removes the right of privacy from all of us, no matter who we are. If the Police obtain a warrant, they must do so under specific grounds. If they are able to do so simply to fish for whatever they can find, then the warrant is no protection to the individual and is no longer fit for purpose.
  • TonyE said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Sitting on the evidence for a decade before striking when Grern was weaken. Not a good fact pattern for public interest defence
    I’m not defending the police.

    I’m just pointing out the reality.

    I generally put Bob Quick in the same circle of hell as Mark Reckless.
    The Plod don't come out of this very well, TSE, but then the Plod aren't running the country. Not supposed to be anyway.

    No sympathy for Green. If he wants to play with his cock he can do it in his own time, and use his own equipment.
    There is no proof that he was doing either - just that a computer, in his office, had Porn on it. The protections in law against 'Fishing expeditions' are not entirely clear. The warrant was looking for 'leaks' from a government department. Having not found those, the PC should have been returned and no evidence should have been noted about other information on the PC at all.
    That it was, highlights an important failing that removes the right of privacy from all of us, no matter who we are. If the Police obtain a warrant, they must do so under specific grounds. If they are able to do so simply to fish for whatever they can find, then the warrant is no protection to the individual and is no longer fit for purpose.
    So he resigned for no good reason?

    Unusual.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    TonyE said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Sitting on the evidence for a decade before striking when Grern was weaken. Not a good fact pattern for public interest defence
    I’m not defending the police.

    I’m just pointing out the reality.

    I generally put Bob Quick in the same circle of hell as Mark Reckless.
    The Plod don't come out of this very well, TSE, but then the Plod aren't running the country. Not supposed to be anyway.

    No sympathy for Green. If he wants to play with his cock he can do it in his own time, and use his own equipment.
    There is no proof that he was doing either - just that a computer, in his office, had Porn on it. The protections in law against 'Fishing expeditions' are not entirely clear. The warrant was looking for 'leaks' from a government department. Having not found those, the PC should have been returned and no evidence should have been noted about other information on the PC at all.
    That it was, highlights an important failing that removes the right of privacy from all of us, no matter who we are. If the Police obtain a warrant, they must do so under specific grounds. If they are able to do so simply to fish for whatever they can find, then the warrant is no protection to the individual and is no longer fit for purpose.
    So he resigned for no good reason?

    Unusual.
    He resigned specifically because he lied about being notified that the porn was found, and that he was not aware that it had been found. His solicitor was notified twice that it had been found at the time.

    And that is all.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    No: if he was sacked over the porn allegations, not for lying.

    (Why did Green lie? It's not obvious that extra sentence added anything to his defence)
    Didn't you tell me last nite, Charles, that Green didn't lie?

    Hunt says, he lied. Seems to me he lied. Seems to me that's why he has been resigned.

    You telling us different?
    Last night you said he lied about the porn. I corrected you - he lied about having been *told* about the porn.

    Important distinction
    Did I? I thought I said he just lied. Didn't I just refer to him as a lying dratsab and leave it at that?

    Then you stroll along and say 'no, no, no, he didn't lie'. So who has this wrong?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,038
    calum said:
    Must be same sources Beth Right uses
  • TonyE said:

    TonyE said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Sitting on the evidence for a decade before striking when Grern was weaken. Not a good fact pattern for public interest defence
    I’m not defending the police.

    I’m just pointing out the reality.

    I generally put Bob Quick in the same circle of hell as Mark Reckless.
    The Plod don't come out of this very well, TSE, but then the Plod aren't running the country. Not supposed to be anyway.

    No sympathy for Green. If he wants to play with his cock he can do it in his own time, and use his own equipment.
    There is no proof that he was doing either - just that a computer, in his office, had Porn on it. The protections in law against 'Fishing expeditions' are not entirely clear. The warrant was looking for 'leaks' from a government department. Having not found those, the PC should have been returned and no evidence should have been noted about other information on the PC at all.
    That it was, highlights an important failing that removes the right of privacy from all of us, no matter who we are. If the Police obtain a warrant, they must do so under specific grounds. If they are able to do so simply to fish for whatever they can find, then the warrant is no protection to the individual and is no longer fit for purpose.
    So he resigned for no good reason?

    Unusual.
    He resigned specifically because he lied about being notified that the porn was found, and that he was not aware that it had been found. His solicitor was notified twice that it had been found at the time.

    And that is all.
    So he did lie. (Charles, please note.)

    Wonder why?
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    Tories' righteous anger at the police (or technically, ex-police) should be suppressed. Reflect on Oscar Wilde. Let the story die.

    First the police tried to stitch up Damian Green, and I said nothing because I am not Damian Green...
    Hillsborough, Orgreave, suffragettes? Those blokes who have just had rape charges dropped? Stop and search? Sus laws? Damian Green is not the martyr you seek.
    The police can leak false details to the press to discredit killed victims (de Menezes was running away! That Muslim was shot by his own brother and was a pedo anyway!) all they want, but when middle-aged Tory porn addicts get targeted PB for some reason takes it personally...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    No: if he was sacked over the porn allegations, not for lying.

    (Why did Green lie? It's not obvious that extra sentence added anything to his defence)
    Didn't you tell me last nite, Charles, that Green didn't lie?

    Hunt says, he lied. Seems to me he lied. Seems to me that's why he has been resigned.

    You telling us different?
    Last night you said he lied about the porn. I corrected you - he lied about having been *told* about the porn.

    Important distinction
    Did I? I thought I said he just lied. Didn't I just refer to him as a lying dratsab and leave it at that?

    Then you stroll along and say 'no, no, no, he didn't lie'. So who has this wrong?
    Somebody could check - I don't really care.

    He was sacked for lying about being told, not for having porn or lying about having porn
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    TonyE said:

    TonyE said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Sitting on the evidence for a decade before striking when Grern was weaken. Not a good fact pattern for public interest defence
    I’m not defending the police.

    I’m just pointing out the reality.

    I generally put Bob Quick in the same circle of hell as Mark Reckless.
    The Plod don't come out of this very well, TSE, but then the Plod aren't running the country. Not supposed to be anyway.

    No sympathy for Green. If he wants to play with his cock he can do it in his own time, and use his own equipment.
    There is no proof that he was doing either - just that a computer, in his office, had Porn on it. The protections in law against 'Fishing expeditions' are not entirely clear. The warrant was looking for 'leaks' from a government department. Having not found those, the PC should have been returned and no evidence should have been noted about other information on the PC at all.
    That it was, highlights an important failing that removes the right of privacy from all of us, no matter who we are. If the Police obtain a warrant, they must do so under specific grounds. If they are able to do so simply to fish for whatever they can find, then the warrant is no protection to the individual and is no longer fit for purpose.
    So he resigned for no good reason?

    Unusual.
    He resigned specifically because he lied about being notified that the porn was found, and that he was not aware that it had been found. His solicitor was notified twice that it had been found at the time.

    And that is all.
    So he did lie. (Charles, please note.)

    Wonder why?
    I agree with @TonyE !

    You are saying something different
  • Charles said:

    TonyE said:

    TonyE said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Absolutely shockingly bad report of this on ITV News last night. Not a single word on the very dubious circumstances in which this information, kept by police officers a decade or so after the investigation (to which this information was not relevant), was revealed.

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Sitting on the evidence for a decade before striking when Grern was weaken. Not a good fact pattern for public interest defence
    I’m not defending the police.

    I’m just pointing out the reality.

    I generally put Bob Quick in the same circle of hell as Mark Reckless.
    The Plod don't come out of this very well, TSE, but then the Plod aren't running the country. Not supposed to be anyway.

    No sympathy for Green. If he wants to play with his cock he can do it in his own time, and use his own equipment.
    There is no proof that he was doing either - just that a computer, in his office, had Porn on it. The protections in law against 'Fishing expeditions' are not entirely clear. The warrant was looking for 'leaks' from a government department. Having not found those, the PC should have been returned and no evidence should have been noted about other information on the PC at all.
    That it was, highlights an important failing that removes the right of privacy from all of us, no matter who we are. If the Police obtain a warrant, they must do so under specific grounds. If they are able to do so simply to fish for whatever they can find, then the warrant is no protection to the individual and is no longer fit for purpose.
    So he resigned for no good reason?

    Unusual.
    He resigned specifically because he lied about being notified that the porn was found, and that he was not aware that it had been found. His solicitor was notified twice that it had been found at the time.

    And that is all.
    So he did lie. (Charles, please note.)

    Wonder why?
    I agree with @TonyE !

    You are saying something different
    My post last nite was very brief. I referred to Green as a liar. That was all. Didn't elaborate at all. You said he wasn't. Now you are fictionalising my account.

    Why?

  • The police can leak false details to the press to discredit killed victims (de Menezes was running away! That Muslim was shot by his own brother and was a pedo anyway!) all they want, but when middle-aged Tory porn addicts get targeted PB for some reason takes it personally...

    Well, the terrifying thing about this is seeing how they act with cabinet ministers who could potentially get back at them and, in the Plebgate case, also CCTV, think what they must be like when dealing with poor and/or uneducated people with little or no hope of defending themselves.

    Juries really need to start routinely assuming that the police are lying to them.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    No: if he was sacked over the porn allegations, not for lying.

    (Why did Green lie? It's not obvious that extra sentence added anything to his defence)
    Didn't you tell me last nite, Charles, that Green didn't lie?

    Hunt says, he lied. Seems to me he lied. Seems to me that's why he has been resigned.

    You telling us different?
    Last night you said he lied about the porn. I corrected you - he lied about having been *told* about the porn.

    Important distinction
    Did I? I thought I said he just lied. Didn't I just refer to him as a lying dratsab and leave it at that?

    Then you stroll along and say 'no, no, no, he didn't lie'. So who has this wrong?
    Somebody could check - I don't really care.

    He was sacked for lying about being told, not for having porn or lying about having porn
    Ah, ok. Got it now. I referred to him as a liar. You said he wasn't. Now you don't care.

    Fairy nuff.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938
    May survives for three reasons - one, there is no single opponent who can unify a significant portion of the Party against her. There are a number of potential successors each of whom has his or her own power base within the Parliamentary Party (which is all that counts until you are one of the last two) but none of whom has a decisive advantage or knows they can strike and win.

    Second, the A50 negotiations. If the outcome is not deemed to be electorally popular, irrespective of whether it is in fact a good or bad deal for the country, May can carry the can and her successors can start with a fairly clean slate.

    Third, May is not a loser, yet. Rather, no one else would be significantly better. Thatcher fell in 1990 because polls showed first Heseltine and then Major doing much better against Labour. Dewy-eyed Thatcherites tend to forget this - had the Conservatives gone into a 1991 election led by Thatcher they would have lost because a lot of the country were sick and tired of her by then. May's problems will only begin if the polls show a number of Conservative MPs losing their seats and jobs whereas said jobs would be safe with Boris or Gove or Hunt or whoever as leader.


  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited December 2017
    Just in case anyone is interested...

    The Ugandan parliament passed a law yesterday, pretty much confirming Museveni as president for life. The chances of a peaceful - and meaningful - transfer of power now look remote.

    Background;

    https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/horn-africa/uganda/256-ugandas-slow-slide-crisis

  • The police can leak false details to the press to discredit killed victims (de Menezes was running away! That Muslim was shot by his own brother and was a pedo anyway!) all they want, but when middle-aged Tory porn addicts get targeted PB for some reason takes it personally...

    Well, the terrifying thing about this is seeing how they act with cabinet ministers who could potentially get back at them and, in the Plebgate case, also CCTV, think what they must be like when dealing with poor and/or uneducated people with little or no hope of defending themselves.

    Juries really need to start routinely assuming that the police are lying to them.
    Been on a few juries, Edmund. Not one thought the police were lying and in each case the possibility was discussed and discounted, correctly in my opinion. Doesn't mean they never do. Each case should be judged on its merits, on the evidence and using common sense.

    They seem to me to have behaved badly in this case, but there is no reason to think they lied.

    Green behaved badly, and lied (whatever Charles may say!)
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,538

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Tories' righteous anger at the police (or technically, ex-police) should be suppressed. Reflect on Oscar Wilde. Let the story die.

    First the police tried to stitch up Damian Green, and I said nothing because I am not Damian Green...
    Hillsborough, Orgreave, suffragettes? Those blokes who have just had rape charges dropped? Stop and search? Sus laws? Damian Green is not the martyr you seek.
    The police can leak false details to the press to discredit killed victims (de Menezes was running away! That Muslim was shot by his own brother and was a pedo anyway!) all they want, but when middle-aged Tory porn addicts get targeted PB for some reason takes it personally...
    What an exceptionally stupid thing to say; unless, of course, you can link to a post showing that one or more PB posters are OK with the two killings you refer to.
  • Mr. Winstanley, the site has not been collectively shy of criticising the police over the recent collapsed rape trial, or the Rotherham disgrace. I see no reason why an MP should be less deserving of justice, or why you would condemn those who think that retired policemen should not leak information acquired during their career and which was not pertinent to anything they investigated.

    Still, evil baby-eating Tories etc etc ad Momentum.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:

    TonyE said:

    TonyE said:

    Charles said:

    Good morninginformation

    Public interest defence.

    You could argue the methods here aren’t as bad than the methods that saw the expenses saga.
    Sitting on the evidence for a decade before striking when Grern was weaken. Not a good fact pattern for public interest defence
    I’m not defending the police.

    I’m just pointing out the reality.

    I generally put Bob Quick in the same circle of hell as Mark Reckless.
    The Plod don't come out of this very well, TSE, but then the Plod aren't running the country. Not supposed to be anyway.

    No sympathy for Green. If he wants to play with his cock he can do it in his own time, and use his own equipment.
    There is no proof that he was doing either - just that a computer, in his office, had Porn on it. The protections in law against 'Fishing expeditions' are not entirely clear. The warrant was looking for 'leaks' from a government department. Having not found those, the PC should have been returned and no evidence should have been noted about other information on the PC at all.
    That it was, highlights an important failing that removes the right of privacy from all of us, no matter who we are. If the Police obtain a warrant, they must do so under specific grounds. If they are able to do so simply to fish for whatever they can find, then the warrant is no protection to the individual and is no longer fit for purpose.
    So he resigned for no good reason?

    Unusual.
    He resigned specifically because he lied about being notified that the porn was found, and that he was not aware that it had been found. His solicitor was notified twice that it had been found at the time.

    And that is all.
    So he did lie. (Charles, please note.)

    Wonder why?
    I agree with @TonyE !

    You are saying something different
    My post last nite was very brief. I referred to Green as a liar. That was all. Didn't elaborate at all. You said he wasn't. Now you are fictionalising my account.

    Why?
    because i misremembered your post - conflating you with the guardian.

    At the time I thought he had omitted the fact he had been told - hadn't appreciated he'd specifically denied it

    You seem weirdly fixated on something completely unimportant, but if it really matters to you I'm sorry.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,041
    Potentially a bit of value in the Betfair Catalonian market - most recent polling points to the Cs having a good chance of getting the most seats. JxCat also seem to be staging a late surge - results due at 10pm.

    ERC 2/5
    Cs 7/4
    JxCat 8/1

  • The police can leak false details to the press to discredit killed victims (de Menezes was running away! That Muslim was shot by his own brother and was a pedo anyway!) all they want, but when middle-aged Tory porn addicts get targeted PB for some reason takes it personally...

    Well, the terrifying thing about this is seeing how they act with cabinet ministers who could potentially get back at them and, in the Plebgate case, also CCTV, think what they must be like when dealing with poor and/or uneducated people with little or no hope of defending themselves.

    Juries really need to start routinely assuming that the police are lying to them.
    Reminds me of the old Spitting Image joke (based on 1970s miscarriages of justice). Something along the lines of:

    Policeman 1: You in the West Midlands Serious Crime squad?
    Policeman 2: Yes, that's right
    Policeman 1: Well then, let's get out there and commit a serious crime.

  • calum said:

    Potentially a bit of value in the Betfair Catalonian market - most recent polling points to the Cs having a good chance of getting the most seats. JxCat also seem to be staging a late surge - results due at 10pm.

    ERC 2/5
    Cs 7/4
    JxCat 8/1

    It's the seats part that's the issue.

    There are four very unequal seats, with the Barcelona seat carrying a majority, but is even then underweighted in terms of population. I think that's what's contributing to some v different views.

    I have Cs at about 2.4, only £20 though
  • This case has striking similarities to the Stephen Byers affair. A lie, not particularly important but quite deliberate, told in relation to an essentially minor matter. Theresa May's handling of the matter compares very favourably with Tony Blair's. She has taken a difficult but correct decision. Once a minister's reputation for integrity has been compromised, whatever the surrounding circumstances, there must be consequences. Her government will benefit from her decision.
  • Charles said:


    because i misremembered your post - conflating you with the guardian.

    At the time I thought he had omitted the fact he had been told - hadn't appreciated he'd specifically denied it

    You seem weirdly fixated on something completely unimportant, but if it really matters to you I'm sorry.

    And this week's award for most piss poor, grudging apology goes to..
  • That's the Germans surrounded.....

    The Prime Minister will travel to Warsaw today for an annual summit designed to strengthen the relationship between the UK and Poland as Britain prepares to leave the EU.

    The UK-Poland bilateral summit will bring together both Prime Ministers along with a number of senior Cabinet ministers, including the Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary, Home Secretary and Business Secretary.

    As an integral part of the summit, the Prime Minister is expected to announce a new joint UK-Poland Treaty on Defence and Security Co-operation. The only other European Union country we have such a treaty with is France.


    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-announces-landmark-new-package-of-defence-and-security-cooperation-with-poland
This discussion has been closed.