Damian Green

[albie]

Sacked by the Maybot for telling Porkies;
https://is.gd/FtZovw

Fibsters throughout the Cabinet will be all a-tremble tonight.

I wonder if Davis is now going to honour his promise to resign if Green was sacked....what are the chances, do you reckon?

[Hounslowrover]

Sacked by the Maybot for telling Porkies;
https://is.gd/FtZovw

Fibsters throughout the Cabinet will be all a-tremble tonight.

I wonder if Davis is now going to honour his promise to resign if Green was sacked....what are the chances, do you reckon?

I doubt he will resign. Interesting he defended Green without any evidence to support him, just Green's word (he turned out to be lying).  Looks a bit like Davis' Brexit assessments and negotiations, no evidence, just trust me!

[Glyn_Wigley]

If he won't resign after being caught lying to Parliament, I doubt whether the promise to resign over this will mean anything to him.

[Geoff Blakesley]

Officially didn't Green resign rather than be sacked ?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Officially didn't Green resign rather than be sacked ?

The PM asked for his resignation. Green is still insisting he did nothing wrong - why would you resign of your own volition if that was the case?

[hoolahoop]

They are dropping like nine-pins, high time these t**ts moved aside. Davis is the scalp that I would love to see......he is a lying toerag.

Time to see Farage having his collar felt too the greedy c**t. That fascist is as bad as Dr. Liam Fox

[The Red Baron]

Sacked by the Maybot for telling Porkies;
https://is.gd/FtZovw

Fibsters throughout the Cabinet will be all a-tremble tonight.

I wonder if Davis is now going to honour his promise to resign if Green was sacked....what are the chances, do you reckon?

It might seem like splitting hairs, but I thought Davis threatened to resign if Green was forced out by a "witch hunt." As Green has admitted he lied perhaps Davis feels he doesn't have to go through with his threat.

It did seem an odd thing for him to say though, especially as May would be very reluctant to lose an old friend and ally like Green.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Might be on my own here, but I’m somewhat uneasy about the Green issue.

Police accept that he did nothing illegal. Then, years later, a retired copper takes it on himself to talk to the media about the case. Which appears to be more about morals and titilation than anything else. Green, seeing the pack after him, panics and lies. And as a result, is sacked.

Yes he lied. Yes he should be sacked for that. But the root of this issue is a retired copper deciding that he’s going to release information that really ought to be confidential.

And that’s my concern. Much as I dislike the stories, they are the elected Govt of the country. If you have rogue coppers deciding that they will ignore the rules and effectively take down a Cabinet Minister who had (apparently) done nothing illegal, then you’re on a very slippery slope.

Those on the Left who are gloating about this might want to reflect what the Establishment could do to Labour ministers if this is accepted as fair behaviour...

[Glyn_Wigley]

The copper needs punishing, no doubt. I'm not sure it was done with the intent of bringing Green down - he lied after the revelation and that is what he had to go for, no-one made him lie. Personal gain and/or promotion is more likely to have been the motivation.

[Yargo]

Might be on my own here.

Those on the Left who are gloating about this might want to reflect what the Establishment could do to Labour ministers if this is accepted as fair behaviour...

Tell me who sent PC Plod into his office to search?

The Establishment eh, ooh you anarchist you

[albie]

It looks like Davis is taking the line that Green should not be "unfairly sacked", on the basis of the ex-police revelations. As he was "fairly sacked" for breach of the ministerial code, then Davis has an out.

I agree with BST that this type of material should not come into play, and that similar ploy would be used against Labour in turn.

A key point though is that the Tory whips were using this information as an enforcement collateral, looking to leverage against dissent. It is not just the ex-police officer leaking information into the public domain, it had an internal presence within the government machine.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Fair point albie.

Nasty business, this politics.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yargo

I don’t expect anything more sensible from you, but consider this.

Try this situation. Imagine a left-wing politician  is accused of a crime. They’re investigated and no evidence is found. But something crops up, totally unrelated, which is embarrassing.

Imagine this politician, years later, is investigating a problem with the police. Say an Orgreave or a Hillsborough. And imagine that the police feel empowered to use that embarrassing information to scare the politician away from investigating them.

If you accept that how Green has been treated is fair, then you’re also accepting that the police should be able to act like this in my scenario.

My take is that elected officials should not be at the risk of blackmail by the police. Full stop. No matter which party they are from.

[The Red Baron]

Might be on my own here, but I’m somewhat uneasy about the Green issue.

Police accept that he did nothing illegal. Then, years later, a retired copper takes it on himself to talk to the media about the case. Which appears to be more about morals and titilation than anything else. Green, seeing the pack after him, panics and lies. And as a result, is sacked.

Yes he lied. Yes he should be sacked for that. But the root of this issue is a retired copper deciding that he’s going to release information that really ought to be confidential.

And that’s my concern. Much as I dislike the stories, they are the elected Govt of the country. If you have rogue coppers deciding that they will ignore the rules and effectively take down a Cabinet Minister who had (apparently) done nothing illegal, then you’re on a very slippery slope.

Those on the Left who are gloating about this might want to reflect what the Establishment could do to Labour ministers if this is accepted as fair behaviour...

I'm with you on this and a number of left-wing commentators have also expressed unease. It just happened to be a Tory minister, but it could have been a minister from any party.

[Not Now Kato]

Yargo

I don’t expect anything more sensible from you, but consider this.

Try this situation. Imagine a left-wing politician  is accused of a crime. They’re investigated and no evidence is found. But something crops up, totally unrelated, which is embarrassing.

Imagine this politician, years later, is investigating a problem with the police. Say an Orgreave or a Hillsborough. And imagine that the police feel empowered to use that embarrassing information to scare the politician away from investigating them.

If you accept that how Green has been treated is fair, then you’re also accepting that the police should be able to act like this in my scenario.

My take is that elected officials should not be at the risk of blackmail by the police. Full stop. No matter which party they are from.

BST. The only thing that puts elected officials, (or indeed anyone else for that matter), at risk of blackmail is doing something they know they shouldn't.
 
It doesn't have to be 'illegal', it just has to be something that the know they shouldn't do - it's as simple as that.
 
There are only two ways the porn could have ended up on both his desktop PC and his Laptop, Green either used government equipment in government time to download the porn, or he disclosed the passwords to both his PC and Laptop to others, (and they downloaded the porn behind his back); either of which is against parliamentary rules, though the second is IMO the more serious breach.
 
Quite why the Tory Party didn't follow up on the initial report to them regarding the porn is an interesting question in itself, however, in lying to parliament Green compounded the issue and deserves all he gets for his stupidity.

[wilts rover]

It took how long to pressure the government to order an inquiry into the police cover-up of their actions at Hillsborough? They still refuse to order one into Orgreave.

This week a report into the death of a man in Bristol in 2013 (following which 2 officers were jailed) found evidence of institutional racism in A&S Police. Where's the government outcry and action on this?

Also this week dozens of cases of rape are having to be reviewed for miscarriage of justice or dropped due to police misusing evidence. Where's the government outcry on that?

A bloke who it is pointed out has 'inconsistencies' in his evidence over inappropriate behaviour towards a junior colleague whose evidence is 'believable' has it pointed out by the police he's been a bit naughty and then lied about - and the world goes into meltdown.

Get real on what's important on holding the police to account people. And why the government are not doing that - but are using them to deflect away from their own problems.

[StocktonRover]

By resigning he will keep his pension safe.
If sacked he would have lost it

[BillyStubbsTears]

I agree with you on all the other points Wilts. They are all examples of institutional failures.

But you can agree with that and still be worried about the implications of the Green case.

We are a Parliamentary democracy. For all the weaknesses of our systems, those in charge are the representatives of you and me. If they behave badly, the way to get them out of a job is either the due process of Parliament, or our votes at the ballot box.

This is now the second minister in the past few years who has lost their job due to police action when they hadn’t committed a crime. That worries me. A lot.

[BillyStubbsTears]

NNK

Aye, but that means that you only get morally “correct” people as politicians. Not ones with embarrassing sides to their personality.

FDR had an affair. George W Bush was (as far as we know) faithful to his wife. Which one would you have preferred to be in charge of the response to the Great Depression and WWII?

But even so, that’s not the issue. The issue is whether members of the police should be prosecuted for wilfully disseminating information which they come across in the course of their investigations, but which has no bearing on criminal behaviour?

[wilts rover]

Billy, you imply that this information was not known to Green and came as a suprise to him when Quick did his interview in the Sunday Times. His lawyers knew in 2008 and he himself slightly later. Why then did he say on 4th November this year:

"This story is completely untrue and comes from a tainted and untrustworthy source. The police have never suggested to me that improper material was found on my Parliamentary computer, nor did I have a 'private' computer as has been claimed."

It was this that brought the other two ex-policemen to corroborate the evidence Quick had given - because they knew Green was lying because they had told him what they had found.

OK Quick should have some ethical case to answer over the Times interview but sorry this all escalated after that by Green lying and Quick's colleagues coming to his defence to expose that lie. Green could have killed the story stone dead with a proper explanation/excuse on 4th November - why didn't he? He is an ex-journalist.

[hoolahoop]

Did someone or other want to isolate the PM  from her allies it makes me wonder as he was ' the gatekeeper ' perhaps in the way of other ambitious politicians.

Had  someone wanted to isolate her further then perhaps he was preventing them from achieving the balance they wanted in cabinet at such a  crucial time.
She and the other remaining so called " Remainers" are now isolated. Rudd should be looking over her shoulder perhaps she is next .

This could well explain the meteoric rise of Gavin Williamson following the beheading of Michael Fallon ? All supposition I know but the link between police and politicians is all too well known . Seems Williamson is a nasty piece of work who will stop at nothing .

There is much to play for now and a lot of money to be made.

[BillyStubbsTears]

OK Quick should have some ethical case to answer over the Times interview...

Right. So we’re on the same page. This is the entire point I was making. The rest of the details about Green and his cock are irrelevant.

Actually, no, we’re probably not on the same page. Quick ought to face a legal investigation.

I am genuinely bemused that people who, presumably support the concept of Parliamentary democracy do not see the problem here.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Billy, what would you want to be done if it came out that the Whips knew about this and were holding it over Green to ensure him voting the right way? Isn't that just another form of blackmail?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glyn

That’s standard Whip practice. That’s how the system works. There’s a mechanism for accountability there. General Elections where the electorate can decide if they are happy with how the individual and Party have performed.

Qualitatively different from police deciding who they are going to take down. Where’s the accountability unless criminal action is taken against the police for doing this?

[Glyn_Wigley]

I know it's standard Whips practice and its how the system works - what I'm asking you is do you agree with it being just another form of blackmail and therefore just as much against Parliamentary democracy and also therefore should be just as punishable as when done by anyone else?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glyn

No, I don’t agree. Because as I say, there is an accountability mechanism through the ballot box.

If a blind eye is turned to police mispractice, then there is no accountability. And that is a very worrying situation.

[Glyn_Wigley]

That's all very well...if you know what the whips know and can hold them to account.

[hoolahoop]

I know it's standard Whips practice and its how the system works - what I'm asking you is do you agree with it being just another form of blackmail and therefore just as much against Parliamentary democracy and also therefore should be just as punishable as when done by anyone else?

However I do agree how can it be democratic to think it's ok to hold sensitive nay even perhaps illegal information over someone to ensure they vote the way the whips so decide.
The whole idea of whips has to be the daftest anti- democratic idea ever. Does it operate all round the world , are the times when ELECTED officials are able to vote with their consciences so limited ?

[BillyStubbsTears]

That's all very well...if you know what the whips know and can hold them to account.

You know how MPs vote in the House. If an MP or party votes in a way that people dislike, blackmailed or not, they can be voted out.

[albie]

I think that there is an issue with former police officers using priveleged information in this way, but it is a side issue.

Why do the Tories (and the media) like to direct the debate into this diversion?
Maybe there is more to come, under the radar for the minute?

It seems to me that if the whips had this information for some time past, and had no hesitation in using it to influence the MP concerned, then others with an interest in blackmail could do likewise.

After all, this info was well known in certain circles before the ex policeman spoke out. Is there a chance that political behaviour (access to decision makers,amendments, voting behaviour) could have been influenced by outside vested interests?

Putin monitoring Trump in Moscow to gain leverage is a case in point. Same rationale here.

Remember Profumo.....a security risk!
Deputy PM could also be vulnerable to influence.