@tnewtondunn: This cannot end without one of these two men publicly disgraced, and possibly facing criminal charges. Highest stakes. twitter.com/tnewtondunn/st…
Quick's reputation is already tainted by what happened 9 years ago. And this does look like a cack-handed attempt at some sort of score settling.
Green has to be very sure to have gone so hard against Quick.
Out of interest (as I work for myself), do people really get the sack from work for violation of IT policy...or do companies use it as the ultimate sanction and for a first offense they are told in no uncertain terms this is not ok, do not do it again?
I've had to dismiss two people for violation of IT policy.
1) He had received a couple of warnings, both formal and informal about his conduct, and he failed to listen, he was using work emails/messaging platforms to conduct his love life, and we had complaints, one of them involved send a link from a porn site.
2) A bit like 1) but he was harassing/stalking an ex, and using his work email and mobile phone to do so. Was a bit of a shock when the police came to visit.
No sign of Currant Bun front page? All I can see on the website is that it appears Paul Hollywood might have a bit of explaining to do to Mrs Hollywood...
Again?
He is getting a bit of reputation for playing away...
The bonking Boris of baking shows...
Following on from Baxter Basics has another Viz character sprung from the pages: Mr Fru T Bunn?
So can the likes of Surbiton and BenPointer tell me what Government role Damian Green had in 2008, because according to you two he had a government laptop.
.
Er wrong again, the government doesn't supply computers, it is the Commons.
Admit you were wrong, and move on.
I am wrong, I am wrong, I am wrong.
Does that feel better? (Cos it doesn't improve DG's chances of survival one iota)
Looking at porn nine years ago is pretty minor in the scheme of things.
I worked for a company who dismissed a senior manager in 2002 for downloading porn onto an office PC (please note @TSE). Everybody was shocked but no one I spoke to thought the company had acted unreasonably given the circumstances. In the real world people know it's unacceptable to view or downoad porn on work PCs and most have always known that.
More to the point, who downloads porn these days?
Anyone on TalkTalk or Vodafone?
Of course, as a good Muslim boy you wouldn't know anything about this kind of thing...
I'm only going by what my friends say.
Vodafone and TalkTalk have shite speeds, and are dire for streaming.
I'm on o2 and BT, I get stonking speeds.
Good enough for 4k :-) For episodes of The Grand Tour of course.
Yup, Ultra HD is the dog's dangly bits.
Ironically the first thing I watched in 4k was House of Cards (Kevin Spacey version)
In polite company, is the correct thing to do now to deny ever being a massive fan of House of Cards? Asking for a friend....
Two of my all time favourite films feature Kevin Spacey.
I'm in the same boat as you.
.....and not American Beauty?
The Usual Suspects and Se7en were brilliant, but I found the latter so harrowing, I never want to see it again.
That was David Fincher's first feature. Another brilliant film maker. And American Beauty was Sam Mendes first. I think a few clumsy fumbles notwithstanding we have a lot to thank Kevin Spacey for.
Mr Quick is said to have revealed the existence of the alleged material in a draft statement to the Leveson Inquiry about the 2008 raids. It was never read out during the proceedings in 2011 and 2012 meaning that the allegations are only now coming to light.
So can the likes of Surbiton and BenPointer tell me what Government role Damian Green had in 2008, because according to you two he had a government laptop.
Government supplied PC. Just like teachers in state schools have a government supplied PC. The point is if it wasn't his own personal property it's a more serious matter imo.
Er wrong again, the government doesn't supply computers, it is the Commons.
Admit you were wrong, and move on.
I am wrong, I am wrong, I am wrong.
Does that feel better? (Cos it doesn't improve DG's chances of survival one iota)
Looking at porn nine years ago is pretty minor in the scheme of things.
I worked for a company who dismissed a senior manager in 2002 for downloading porn onto an office PC (please note @TSE). Everybody was shocked but no one I spoke to thought the company had acted unreasonably given the circumstances. In the real world people know it's unacceptable to view or downoad porn on work PCs and most have always known that.
More to the point, who downloads porn these days?
Anyone on TalkTalk or Vodafone?
Of course, as a good Muslim boy you wouldn't know anything about this kind of thing...
I'm only going by what my friends say.
Vodafone and TalkTalk have shite speeds, and are dire for streaming.
I'm on o2 and BT, I get stonking speeds.
Good enough for 4k :-) For episodes of The Grand Tour of course.
Yup, Ultra HD is the dog's dangly bits.
Ironically the first thing I watched in 4k was House of Cards (Kevin Spacey version)
In polite company, is the correct thing to do now to deny ever being a massive fan of House of Cards? Asking for a friend....
Two of my all time favourite films feature Kevin Spacey.
I'm in the same boat as you.
It is erfectly possible to be a good actor and bad person.
I'll enjoy his old work, as he is a fantastic actor. I hope now that he is punished for any criminal activity he may have committed. If he is not guilty of the worst allegations then after a probably lengthy period he could be back working in stuff again.
Out of interest (as I work for myself), do people really get the sack from work for violation of IT policy...or do companies use it as the ultimate sanction and for a first offense they are told in no uncertain terms this is not ok, do not do it again?
I've never known anyone to have got in trouble for breaching the IT acceptable use policy. I think it is more likely that they would use it if they were going after you for other reasons.
Before i retired I was a Union Rep working at a major FTSE100 company. The culture was that if you accidentally accessed a non-acceptable site during working hours and owned up to it before being found out then nothing would be done (unless you did it again!) Accessing a porn site on the work IT network would probably have been indefensible even ten years ago unless by accident (which I know happened at least once where I worked). I would have been able to argue that a minute was an accident and the person concerned was likely away from the PC when the screen refreshed, etc, but the network recorded all the browser activity. You would be sacked for that if it were not an accident.
I agree with the point about "acceptable use policy" as I never had to defend anyone one specifically for listing items on eBay during working hours or spending two hours on Facebook updating their profile.
So can the likes of Surbiton and BenPointer tell me what Government role Damian Green had in 2008, because according to you two he had a government laptop.
Government supplied PC. Just like teachers in state schools have a government supplied PC. The point is if it wasn't his own personal property it's a more serious matter imo.
Er wrong again, the government doesn't supply computers, it is the Commons.
Admit you were wrong, and move on.
I am wrong, I am wrong, I am wrong.
Does that feel better? (Cos it doesn't improve DG's chances of survival one iota)
Looking at porn nine years ago is pretty minor in the scheme of things.
I worked for a company who dismissed a senior manager in 2002 for downloading porn onto an office PC (please note @TSE). Everybody was shocked but no one I spoke to thought the company had acted unreasonably given the circumstances. In the real world people know it's unacceptable to view or downoad porn on work PCs and most have always known that.
More to the point, who downloads porn these days?
Anyone on TalkTalk or Vodafone?
Of course, as a good Muslim boy you wouldn't know anything about this kind of thing...
I'm only going by what my friends say.
Vodafone and TalkTalk have shite speeds, and are dire for streaming.
I'm on o2 and BT, I get stonking speeds.
Good enough for 4k :-) For episodes of The Grand Tour of course.
Yup, Ultra HD is the dog's dangly bits.
Ironically the first thing I watched in 4k was House of Cards (Kevin Spacey version)
In polite company, is the correct thing to do now to deny ever being a massive fan of House of Cards? Asking for a friend....
Two of my all time favourite films feature Kevin Spacey.
Mmmmmm. I wonder if it is wise for a senior minister to attack the police in this way. Why does he think Quick has it in for him?
I don't know (Green says the officer harbours resentment about press treatment around the time of the raid on his office), but if he is right that the story is untrue, then it would not only be not unwise, it would be very wise to attack the police in this way since he would be right that the guy has it in for him and that must not stand.
Mr Quick is said to have revealed the existence of the alleged material in a draft statement to the Leveson Inquiry about the 2008 raids. It was never read out during the proceedings in 2011 and 2012 meaning that the allegations are only now coming to light.
Quick could have been a written submission - so that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
And having resigned as a police officer as a result of his handling of the Green case, he could still have made representations to the parliamentary authorities over the porn issue. But didn't.
Britain's most senior anti-terrorism officer today made an unreserved apology to the Conservative party for accusing it of trying to undermine his investigation into the Tory frontbencher Damian Green by planting a newspaper story said to have endangered his family.
The Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Bob Quick retracted his remarks after the Tory leader, David Cameron, demanded he withdraw the "completely baseless" allegations.
Quick said: "I have now reflected on the comments I made yesterday at a difficult time for me and my family. I wish to make clear that it was not my intention to make any allegations and retract my comments. I apologise unreservedly for any offence or embarrassment that I have caused."
That is pretty damning - even the apology itself is a lie, since clearly it was his intention to make allegations, and that's why he had something to retract and apologise for. What he meant was he regretted his allegations, not that he didn't want to make any. That the party was keen to move on from the incident would seem the only reason they didn't more of that bullcrap apology.
We shall still have to see who is lying now, but wow.
Out of interest (as I work for myself), do people really get the sack from work for violation of IT policy...or do companies use it as the ultimate sanction and for a first offense they are told in no uncertain terms this is not ok, do not do it again?
I've never known anyone to have got in trouble for breaching the IT acceptable use policy. I think it is more likely that they would use it if they were going after you for other reasons.
Before i retired I was a Union Rep working at a major FTSE100 company. The culture was that if you accidentally accessed a non-acceptable site during working hours and owned up to it before being found out then nothing would be done (unless you did it again!) Accessing a porn site on the work IT network would probably have been indefensible even ten years ago unless by accident (which I know happened at least once where I worked). I would have been able to argue that a minute was an accident and the person concerned was likely away from the PC when the screen refreshed, etc, but the network recorded all the browser activity. You would be sacked for that if it were not an accident.
I agree with the point about "acceptable use policy" as I never had to defend anyone one specifically for listing items on eBay during working hours or spending two hours on Facebook updating their profile.
Interesting insights, thanks. It is consistent with my own understanding of the situation.
Mr Quick is said to have revealed the existence of the alleged material in a draft statement to the Leveson Inquiry about the 2008 raids. It was never read out during the proceedings in 2011 and 2012 meaning that the allegations are only now coming to light.
Quick could have been a written submission - so that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
And having resigned as a police officer as a result of his handling of the Green case, he could still have made representations to the parliamentary authorities over the porn issue. But didn't.
Quick seems very slippery indeed.
He definitely is slippery. My point is he is claiming he made these allegations years ago (not just in response to the current climate). For starters that should be easy to check, but then so should any record in the plod raid at the time as you would think the computer would have been sent away for proper analysis.
No sign of Currant Bun front page? All I can see on the website is that it appears Paul Hollywood might have a bit of explaining to do to Mrs Hollywood...
Again?
He is getting a bit of reputation for playing away...
The bonking Boris of baking shows...
Following on from Baxter Basics has another Viz character sprung from the pages: Mr Fru T Bunn?
So can the likes of Surbiton and BenPointer tell me what Government role Damian Green had in 2008, because according to you two he had a government laptop.
Government supplied PC. Just like teachers in state schools have a government supplied PC. The point is if it wasn't his own personal property it's a more serious matter imo.
Er wrong again, the government doesn't supply computers, it is the Commons.
Admit you were wrong, and move on.
I am wrong, I am wrong, I am wrong.
Does that feel better? (Cos it doesn't improve DG's chances of survival one iota)
Looking at porn nine years ago is pretty minor in the scheme of things.
I worked for a company who dismissed a senior manager in 2002 for downloading porn onto an office PC (please note @TSE). Everybody was shocked but no one I spoke to thought the company had acted unreasonably given the circumstances. In the real world people know it's unacceptable to view or downoad porn on work PCs that.
More to the point, who downloads porn these days?
Anyone on TalkTalk or Vodafone?
Of course, as a good Muslim boy you wouldn't know anything about this kind of thing...
I'm only going by what my friends say.
V I'm on o2 and BT, I get stonking speeds.
Good enough for 4k :-) For episodes of The Grand Tour of course.
Yup, Ultra HD is the dog's dangly bits.
Ironically the first thing I watched in 4k was House of Cards (Kevin Spacey version)
In polite co for a friend....
Two of my all time favourite films feature Kevin Spacey.
I'm in the same boat as you.
.....and not American Beauty?
Maybe it's a preferred genre thing, but I'd put those other two above American Beauty any day. (Not that I'm even a huge fan of Se7en)
I liked Seven and Usual Suspects but neither as much as American Beauty..Let's face it the man's a huge talent. Release Barabbas!!
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
So can the likes of Surbiton and BenPointer tell me what Government role Damian Green had in 2008, because according to you two he had a government laptop.
Government supplied PC. Just like teachers in state schools have a government supplied PC. The point is if it wasn't his own personal property it's a more serious matter imo.
Er wrong again, the government doesn't supply computers, it is the Commons.
Admit you were wrong, and move on.
I am wrong, I am wrong, I am wrong.
Does that feel better? (Cos it doesn't improve DG's chances of survival one iota)
Looking at porn nine years ago is pretty minor in the scheme of things.
I worked for a compownoad porn on work PCs that.
More to the point, who downloads porn these days?
Anyone on TalkTalk or Vodafone?
Of course, as a good Muslim boy you wouldn't know anything about this kind of thing...
I'm only going by what my friends say.
V I'm on o2 and BT, I get stonking speeds.
Good enough for 4k :-) For episodes of The Grand Tour of course.
Yup, Ultra HD is the dog's dangly bits.
Ironically the first thing I watched in 4k was House of Cards (Kevin Spacey version)
In polite co for a friend....
Two of my all time favourite films feature Kevin Spacey.
I'm in the same boat as you.
.....and not American Beauty?
Maybe it's a preferred genre thing, but I'd put those other two above American Beauty any day. (Not that I'm even a huge fan of Se7en)
I liked Seven and Usual Suspects but neither as much as American Beauty..Let's face it the man's a huge talent. Release Barabbas!!
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
I know we joke about using the word allegedly, but really, should the word be in the title, not just the subheading, rather than 'Tory MP's sex attack on Labour MP in taxi after boozy night out'?
Who the hell does Mann think he is? Setting himself up as judge and jury? Not acceptable, not acceptable at all.
It's certainly premature. Nigel Evans springs to mind when predicting by-elections at mere allegations, given in his case not only were there allegations it went to trial, and he was found to be innocent after all.
I know we joke about using the word allegedly, but really, should the word be in the title, not just the subheading, rather than 'Tory MP's sex attack on Labour MP in taxi after boozy night out'?
Very serious allegation in this one.
It could indeed be a serious allegation. But if the alleged victim won't go on the record, no investigation can take place.
I know we joke about using the word allegedly, but really, should the word be in the title, not just the subheading, rather than 'Tory MP's sex attack on Labour MP in taxi after boozy night out'?
Very serious allegation in this one.
Indeed. Need to keep sense of perspective here. This is a serious allegation, which, if proven, would lead to serious jail time. As would the Ms. Bailey allegation (if persued). Much of the rest, whilst unpleasant, and unacceptable, falls short of that.
I know we joke about using the word allegedly, but really, should the word be in the title, not just the subheading, rather than 'Tory MP's sex attack on Labour MP in taxi after boozy night out'?
Very serious allegation in this one.
It could indeed be a serious allegation. But if the alleged victim won't go on the record, no investigation can take place.
Out of interest (as I work for myself), do people really get the sack from work for violation of IT policy
Yes. This has tightened up over the last ten years. However people are rarely sacked because the trend has been towards software monitoring and prevention: if you are automatically prevented from viewing bad sites then there is no need to sack you. Other prevention measures include disabling of memory slots on PCs and stripping off attachments in emails. However there are always grey areas: my employers will sack for use of gambling sites but does PB actually count as a gambling site per se? Hence my question about use of personal PCs for work purposes.
It interesting. The start-up I worked for many moons ago were very relaxed. Obviously no porn, but gambling sites were ok, watching tv, buying tickets* etc were all ok. Basically as long as the work got done on time the bosses didn't care if you spent 10 minutes watching cat videos.
* in fact there were a couple of times when the bosses and many staff wanted to go to a big event and we all sat there spamming ticketmaster at the release time until one of us got in..and then obviously booked for everybody.
One of the odd things about PB is we have a preponderance of people who work for SMEs or are self employed or in partnerships. I've mostly worked on the Civil Service or in the private sector for big companies (greater than 1000 employees), although I have worked for some smaller (~50-100 employees) companies. The ethics, IT policy and acceptable behavior are very different.
The UK was misled over former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's access to weapons of mass destruction, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said. Mr Brown says US intelligence, which challenged the extent of Iraq's WMD stockpile, was not shared with the UK before it joined the Iraq War. In an extract from his memoir, the ex-Labour leader says "we were not just misinformed, but misled". Mr Brown says he became aware of the "crucial" paper after leaving office.
Out of interest (as I work for myself), do people really get the sack from work for violation of IT policy
Yes. This has tightened up over the last ten years. However people are rarely sacked because the trend has been towards software monitoring and prevention: if you are automatically prevented from viewing bad sites then there is no need to sack you. Other prevention measures include disabling of memory slots on PCs and stripping off attachments in emails. However there are always grey areas: my employers will sack for use of gambling sites but does PB actually count as a gambling site per se? Hence my question about use of personal PCs for work purposes.
It interesting. The start-up I worked for many moons ago were very relaxed. Obviously no porn, but gambling sites were ok, watching tv, buying tickets* etc were all ok. Basically as long as the work got done on time the bosses didn't care if you spent 10 minutes watching cat videos.
* in fact there were a couple of times when the bosses and many staff wanted to go to a big event and we all sat there spamming ticketmaster at the release time until one of us got in..and then obviously booked for everybody.
One of the odd things about PB is we have a preponderance of people who work for SMEs or are self employed or in partnerships. I've mostly worked on the Civil Service or in the private sector for big companies (greater than 1000 employees), although I have worked for some smaller (~50-100 employees) companies. The ethics, IT policy and acceptable behavior are very different.
I've mainly worked in the public sector. I've always studied the acceptable use IT policy and it normally allows the personal use of the internet in some sort of caveated way but prohibits obscene material. My experience of the private sector was limited to a company of about 50 people. People certainly did look at facebook etc there.
I know that many private companies that take a much tougher line.
I know we joke about using the word allegedly, but really, should the word be in the title, not just the subheading, rather than 'Tory MP's sex attack on Labour MP in taxi after boozy night out'?
Very serious allegation in this one.
It could indeed be a serious allegation. But if the alleged victim won't go on the record, no investigation can take place.
Agreed. Due process.
Lack of respect for due process seems to be a big problem at the moment.
Out of interest (as I work for myself), do people really get the sack from work for violation of IT policy
Yes. This has tightened up over the last ten years. However people are rarely sacked because the trend has been towards software monitoring and prevention: if you are automatically prevented from viewing bad sites then there is no need to sack you. Other prevention measures include disabling of memory slots on PCs and stripping off attachments in emails. However there are always grey areas: my employers will sack for use of gambling sites but does PB actually count as a gambling site per se? Hence my question about use of personal PCs for work purposes.
It interesting. The start-up I worked for many moons ago were very relaxed. Obviously no porn, but gambling sites were ok, watching tv, buying tickets* etc were all ok. Basically as long as the work got done on time the bosses didn't care if you spent 10 minutes watching cat videos.
* in fact there were a couple of times when the bosses and many staff wanted to go to a big event and we all sat there spamming ticketmaster at the release time until one of us got in..and then obviously booked for everybody.
One of the odd things about PB is we have a preponderance of people who work for SMEs or are self employed or in partnerships. I've mostly worked on the Civil Service or in the private sector for big companies (greater than 1000 employees), although I have worked for some smaller (~50-100 employees) companies. The ethics, IT policy and acceptable behavior are very different.
I've mainly worked in the public sector. I've always studied the acceptable use IT policy and it normally allows the personal use of the internet in some sort of caveated way but prohibits obscene material. My experience of the private sector was limited to a company of about 50 people. People certainly did look at facebook etc there.
I know that many private companies that take a much tougher line.
Legally there are some appalling things being alleged which do not need to be repeated.
Politically the bar is set far lower, all we need is a bad small and the electorate will do the rest
Which electorate?
My sense (albeit as a non-tory and not linked into tory social circles) is if there were a theoretical May vs Fallon contest for con leader & PM, Fallon would win members by a landslide right now.
Out of interest (as I work for myself), do people really get the sack from work for violation of IT policy
Yes. This has tightened up over the last ten years. However people are rarely sacked because the trend has been towards software monitoring and prevention: if you are automatically prevented from viewing bad sites then there is no need to sack you. Other prevention measures include disabling of memory slots on PCs and stripping off attachments in emails. However there are always grey areas: my employers will sack for use of gambling sites but does PB actually count as a gambling site per se? Hence my question about use of personal PCs for work purposes.
PB is one of two sites that I've tried to access at work and been blocked from with an alert to IT management for investigation.
Working in the IT department, I was able to persuade them to reclassify it as News/Current Affairs rather than gambling!
Out of interest (as I work for myself), do people really get the sack from work for violation of IT policy
Yes. This has tightened up over the last ten years. However people are rarely sacked because the trend has been towards software monitoring and prevention: if you are automatically prevented from viewing bad sites then there is no need to sack you. Other prevention measures include disabling of memory slots on PCs and stripping off attachments in emails. However there are always grey areas: my employers will sack for use of gambling sites but does PB actually count as a gambling site per se? Hence my question about use of personal PCs for work purposes.
PB is one of two sites that I've tried to access at work and been blocked from with an alert to IT management for investigation.
Working in the IT department, I was able to persuade them to reclassify it as News/Current Affairs rather than gambling!
I've found that a lot of public WIFI systems in places like cafes will block PB, presumably because they think it's a betting site like Betfair which it isn't.
I see the Mail is wall to wall sex stories - mainly, it would appear ill-advised drunken advances and fumblings...... also rather naughty in their juxtaposition of photos in the “Tory MP and rower” story.....(rower photo 15 years ago, MP photo current, making the MP look a bit like a dirty old man....)
I see the Mail is wall to wall sex stories - mainly, it would appear ill-advised drunken advances and fumblings...... also rather naughty in their juxtaposition of photos in the “Tory MP and rower” story.....(rower photo 15 years ago, MP photo current, making the MP look a bit like a dirty old man....)
I see the Mail is wall to wall sex stories - mainly, it would appear ill-advised drunken advances and fumblings...... also rather naughty in their juxtaposition of photos in the “Tory MP and rower” story.....(rower photo 15 years ago, MP photo current, making the MP look a bit like a dirty old man....)
And wasnt even an mp when it happened.
I fear in the rush for quantity the serious stories are going to get swamped by the largely trivial....and I see the porn found on one of the work computers of Damian Green’s office was “legal” but described as “extreme” (is that a legal definition?) by a sacked police officer.....
This story is completely untrue and comes from a tainted and untrustworthy source.
'I've been aware for some years that the discredited former assistant commissioner Bob Quick has tried to cause me political damage by leaking false information about the raid on my parliamentary office.
'No newspaper has reported this story due to the complete lack of any evidence.
'The police have never suggested to me that inappropriate material was found on my Parliamentary computer.
'Nor did I have a 'private' computer, as has been claimed. The allegations about the material and the computer, now nine years old, are false.
'They amount to little more than an unscrupulous character assassination.'
I think i've got the solution to Britain's gambling problem / problem gamblers. It's rather counterintuitive. A bit like legalizing all drugs. It shouldn't work but it probably would.
Forget responsible gambling.
Legislate a minimum zero edge (for the punter) into all forms of gambling.
The FOBTs and crappy slot machines would disappear overnight.
Morning all. Well that was all completely boring. Is a bunch of minor stuff a decade or two ago really headline news today? Where’s the MPs sleeping with their interns, serial gropers and sexual assaults?
For those of you wondering about corporate IT monitoring, this is the software that companies use. Very powerful, and can run on laptops when you’re working from home or away on a trip, as well as in the office. If you work for a large company, or one that handles lots of sensitive data, this is what’s most likely running on your PC. https://www.veriato.com
Morning all. Well that was all completely boring. Is a bunch of minor stuff a decade or two ago really headline news today? Where’s the MPs sleeping with their interns, serial gropers and sexual assaults?
In the case of the latter, with the police I hope.....
Comg back to the original post - why is Rees-Mogg so favoured? Is it the appeal of a Bertie Wooster style eurosceptic (and lets not even go onto his beliefs...)
Out of interest (as I work for myself), do people really get the sack from work for violation of IT policy...or do companies use it as the ultimate sanction and for a first offense they are told in no uncertain terms this is not ok, do not do it again?
Some very security conscious companies will sack you first time no exceptions for plugging in an unauthorised memory stick.
Out of interest (as I work for myself), do people really get the sack from work for violation of IT policy...or do companies use it as the ultimate sanction and for a first offense they are told in no uncertain terms this is not ok, do not do it again?
Some very security conscious companies will sack you first time no exceptions for plugging in an unauthorised memory stick.
It is a matter of judgement, but nowadays, most companies are realising that they have a duty of compliance, so that if there was a breach of security, it could be very expensive in fines, and loss of customer confidence. Never mind the cost of repair and backup of systems when they crash, loss of business and having staff sitting around unable to work.
”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.
Comments
Green has to be very sure to have gone so hard against Quick.
1) He had received a couple of warnings, both formal and informal about his conduct, and he failed to listen, he was using work emails/messaging platforms to conduct his love life, and we had complaints, one of them involved send a link from a porn site.
2) A bit like 1) but he was harassing/stalking an ex, and using his work email and mobile phone to do so. Was a bit of a shock when the police came to visit.
http://viz.co.uk/fru-t-bunn-gingerbread-sex-dolls/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5050533/Extreme-porn-Damian-Green-s-computer-police.html
Hmmm....
I agree with the point about "acceptable use policy" as I never had to defend anyone one specifically for listing items on eBay during working hours or spending two hours on Facebook updating their profile.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/dec/22/bob-quick-david-cameron-row
And having resigned as a police officer as a result of his handling of the Green case, he could still have made representations to the parliamentary authorities over the porn issue. But didn't.
Quick seems very slippery indeed.
Britain's most senior anti-terrorism officer today made an unreserved apology to the Conservative party for accusing it of trying to undermine his investigation into the Tory frontbencher Damian Green by planting a newspaper story said to have endangered his family.
The Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Bob Quick retracted his remarks after the Tory leader, David Cameron, demanded he withdraw the "completely baseless" allegations.
Quick said: "I have now reflected on the comments I made yesterday at a difficult time for me and my family. I wish to make clear that it was not my intention to make any allegations and retract my comments. I apologise unreservedly for any offence or embarrassment that I have caused."
That is pretty damning - even the apology itself is a lie, since clearly it was his intention to make allegations, and that's why he had something to retract and apologise for. What he meant was he regretted his allegations, not that he didn't want to make any. That the party was keen to move on from the incident would seem the only reason they didn't more of that bullcrap apology.
We shall still have to see who is lying now, but wow.
Very serious allegation in this one.
Much of the rest, whilst unpleasant, and unacceptable, falls short of that.
Mr Brown says US intelligence, which challenged the extent of Iraq's WMD stockpile, was not shared with the UK before it joined the Iraq War.
In an extract from his memoir, the ex-Labour leader says "we were not just misinformed, but misled".
Mr Brown says he became aware of the "crucial" paper after leaving office.
I know that many private companies that take a much tougher line.
Politically the bar is set far lower, all we need is a bad small and the electorate will do the rest
My sense (albeit as a non-tory and not linked into tory social circles) is if there were a theoretical May vs Fallon contest for con leader & PM, Fallon would win members by a landslide right now.
He's value at ~400/1 for next con leader, imo.
Yet his downfall is all down to Andrea Leadsom (according to the disgraceful DM)
Working in the IT department, I was able to persuade them to reclassify it as News/Current Affairs rather than gambling!
This story is completely untrue and comes from a tainted and untrustworthy source.
'I've been aware for some years that the discredited former assistant commissioner Bob Quick has tried to cause me political damage by leaking false information about the raid on my parliamentary office.
'No newspaper has reported this story due to the complete lack of any evidence.
'The police have never suggested to me that inappropriate material was found on my Parliamentary computer.
'Nor did I have a 'private' computer, as has been claimed. The allegations about the material and the computer, now nine years old, are false.
'They amount to little more than an unscrupulous character assassination.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5050533/Extreme-porn-Damian-Green-s-computer-police.html
Forget responsible gambling.
Legislate a minimum zero edge (for the punter) into all forms of gambling.
The FOBTs and crappy slot machines would disappear overnight.
https://www.veriato.com