Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Irish border issue has the potential to bring down Mrs May

245

Comments

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,242
    edited December 2017

    I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    The trouble is that, contrary to what many politicians seem to think, the general public are not stupid and are able to draw their own conclusions. They rightly see that if the police are both arrogant and powerful enough to stitch up cabinet ministers then normal people gave no chance at all. This is a topic of conversation in pubs and workplaces and it all feeds in to a general dissatisfaction with the whole way the police seem to operate today.
  • DavidL said:

    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    Not to mention the Met plods behaviour about the Tower Hamlets election fraud.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Roger said:

    It hasn't moved more than one or two % for years and then it drops nearly 10% in a couple of weeks (coinciding with me buying a load!!)


    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vw+casino+ad&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=-BEhWo7SJ8i3gAbQi7zYDQ
    That's because interest rates have been raised. MedicX promised a high but low risk dividend yield without much capital growth. If better yields are available elsewhere then capital value declines

    But I will ask a mate who is close to Assura what is going on
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,320

    The BBC 5 Live interview with Lewis this morning was extraordinary. Prefaced with a load of cod justification for him coming forward and not once was he asked whether any crime had been committed or if it was a police matter.

    None of which means Green is safe, but I was pretty appalled by Lewis and not much less appalled by the interview.

    You'd think twice about reporting a break-in into your car in case they found a copy of the Sun
  • Cyclefree said:

    Employees are under a duty of confidentiality to their employers. And this duty continues even after they leave in respect of information gained in the course of their employment. A fortiori for information about the details of a police investigation. Revealing confidential information - and the information he has revealed is confidential - is a breach of that duty. Wanting to defend his former boss is not a sufficient justification for doing so. The proper course would be to raise it in private to those doing the inquiry into Mr Green. Not in public. Not to the press.

    This is ABC stuff for investigators. That the police appear to be unaware of these basic rules or willing to ignore them is simply wrong and worrying, given the powers they have.
    There's also the data protection legislation to be considered. This seems to have been breached spectacularly in multiple ways.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Has Lewis potentially committed a crime?
    Certainly breach of confidentiality. Not sure if a crime
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,963

    I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    I don’t disagree with that. But we now accept, all too readily, that institutions can be institutionally biased and that the bad egg excuse is rarely true. There is truth in that because such inimical attitudes and behaviours rarely come out of the blue but are an exaggeration of the culture in which they are tolerated or thrive.

    This is where we are with the police. It’s sad. Dixon of Dock Green retired a long time ago.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    Charles said:

    AIUI, UK rules on animal welfare are generally higher than in the rest of the EU (don't eat Danish bacon).

    Papers of origin should cover concern about pass through.
    Yes they are. But the regs are much wider than that - regarding all fresh/packaged/pre cooked foodstuffs, grains & Seeds, pesticides etc. Not just live animal welfare - the complete SPS package is enormous.
  • It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    Charles said:

    Certainly breach of confidentiality. Not sure if a crime
    If he has taken evidence in any form, either written or digital, from his time on the case, Theft. I would argue that all notes are able to be called upon by the courts as evidence, and therefore are retained by the Force as such.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600
    edited December 2017
    Nigelb said:

    I don't care much about Green one way or the other, but the police behaviour is, on the face of it, absolutely unacceptable. To criticise it is not 'social media lynching'.
    Yes, if Green did not break the law as suggested it is a matter for the Cabinet Office, Commons Authorities and the Tory Party and his constituents and not the police.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,422
    HYUFD said:

    Since June most opinion polls no longer adjust the raw data in the same way they did at the general election.

    LD success is explained partly by NIMBYISM and opposition to local plans not just an anti government protest vote, after all the biggest swing to the LDs last night came when they won a seat off Labour, not one of their gains from the Tories
    I look forward Mr D, to the day you find something amiss with anything Tory!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,380

    The trouble is that, contrary to what many politicians seem to think, the general public are not stupid and are able to draw their own conclusions. They rightly see that if the police are both arrogant and powerful enough to stitch up cabinet ministers then normal people gave no chance at all. This is a topic of conversation in pubs and workplaces and it all feeds in to a general dissatisfaction with the whole way the police seem to operate today.
    I would say that in my own (quite extensive) dealings with the police, I've found them pretty competent, overall.

    But, there are too many cases of information being leaked just to embarrass people.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,129

    Yes, I see that, and I think it's peculiar that he kept his notes. But it's part of a series of events. If someone falsely accused a former boss who I liked (I'm not saying this is the case here, but it's possible), I don't think I'd stay silent.

    Like Fox I think we should basically leave it to the Cabinet Office to investigate, as I think Green has asked them to do, and avoid piling in on either Green or his accusers.
    If he thinks his ex-boss has been maligned, and has some evidence that may help, then go to the people investigating. Don't go to the media.

    What he has done is indefensible IMO, and criticising him for it is not 'piling in' on him.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155


    Since June most opinion polls no longer adjust the raw data in the same way they did at the general election.

    LD success is explained partly by NIMBYISM and opposition to local plans not just an anti government protest vote, after all the biggest swing to the LDs last night came when they won a seat off Labour, not one of their gains from the Tories

    I think people either forget / don't know the level of work it takes to win council seats when you're not Lab/Tory in safe Lab/Tory areas. These local wins are all about finding wards taken for granted because they've "always voted x" and just being really proactive there. Voters like feeling cared about, especially with local elections. I wouldn't call this just NIMBYISM (although many LDs trying to get votes of Tories are highlighting the awful top down development rules we have atm) or anti government voting; it's local parties exerting their person power at times the other parties aren't necessarily getting the bump from national political coverage.

    I think LDs currently have a higher percentage of their members being active; post Brexit they've had a members bump, and those members are angry / want to engage. This means, although they're still at some of their lowest national support, the support they do have is doing more.

    I wouldn't take these by-elections to mean much on the national stage, because a) they are local elections, not elections judging the government of the time (arguably what national locals are), and b) we live at a time where we can't say for certain what will even cause the next GE....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,380
    DavidL said:

    I don’t disagree with that. But we now accept, all too readily, that institutions can be institutionally biased and that the bad egg excuse is rarely true. There is truth in that because such inimical attitudes and behaviours rarely come out of the blue but are an exaggeration of the culture in which they are tolerated or thrive.

    This is where we are with the police. It’s sad. Dixon of Dock Green retired a long time ago.
    I think the big problem with most institutions is based on a (very human) desire to avoid embarrassment, leading to bad behaviour being covered up.
  • I think one of the more disheartening of modern political trends is for the sensible wings of both conservatism and of liberalism to want to discredit and undermine our democratic organisations and institutions.

    There may well be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but attacking the overall institution does permanent damage. This applies to both Parliament and police, and from both Left and Right.
    The organisations and institutions need in that case to be capable of self-regulation and taking action against crime, corruption and incompetence within their own ranks.

    And in that I don't think there is much faith from outsiders.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    If he thinks his ex-boss has been maligned, and has some evidence that may help, then go to the people investigating. Don't go to the media.

    What he has done is indefensible IMO, and criticising him for it is not 'piling in' on him.
    There is also the question of what “his former boss” was doing commenting in the first place, which prompted the “maligning”. It did not on the face of it have anything to do with the allegations made against Green beyond that sexual harassment and pornography both involve sex.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,251
    PClipp said:

    Mr Fear, how do you explain last night`s four Lib Dem triumphs in local government elections in different parts of the country? I think you are a bit out-of-date, as the opinion polls are. They adjust the raw figures too much.
    The LibDems did really well in the local by-elections in the run up to the 2015 General Election as well...
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    My faith in the police evaporated over many years but was driven by two events primarily - the actions at and subsequent lies over Orgreave and the stitching up of Andrew Mitchell. The fact that the police thought they couldn't should get away with such abuses of their position means that are no longer fit for purpose.
    I agree over the two cases you mention.However I do not agree with you use of the John Reid quote regarding the Police, in most circumstances they do a fantastic job.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Sean_F said:

    I think the big problem with most institutions is based on a (very human) desire to avoid embarrassment, leading to bad behaviour being covered up.
    Added to the culture in many industries, companies and organisations which seek first to punish minor mistakes rather than learn from them.
  • The LibDems did really well in the local by-elections in the run up to the 2015 General Election as well...
    Or we could compare Harry Hayfield's local byelection based predictions for the last local elections:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/03/30/looking-forward-to-the-county-council-elections-2017/

    to actual results:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2017
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,504

    It seems that net immigration was about 350,000 higher than previously thought between the 2001 and 2011 censuses:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/longterminternationalmigrationcitizenshiptable201a

    Which among other things would also make the GDP per capita lower than thought at the time.

    That's odd. I'd have thought the test of the migration stats was simply a comparison between the 2011 Census and 2011 mid year estimate. There must be more to it that than "have we added in enough births/immigrants and taken away enough deaths/emigrants?"
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,267
    edited December 2017

    My faith in the police evaporated over many years but was driven by two events primarily - the actions at and subsequent lies over Orgreave and the stitching up of Andrew Mitchell. The fact that the police thought they couldn't should get away with such abuses of their position means that are no longer fit for purpose.
    This is not the Met though. It is a couple of retired policemen. Mr Quick, who's reputation was under a cloud when he left, and Neil Lewis.

    The claim "I saw thousands of thumbnails so there must have been thousands of images" sounds like some of the erroneous reasoning from Operation Ore.

    Remember what Sir Paul Stephenson said on this allegation:

    "Referring to the pornography allegations, Stephenson said: “I regret it’s in the public domain. There was no criminality involved, there were no victims, there was no vulnerability and it was not a matter of extraordinary public interest.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/12/ex-scotland-yard-police-chief-knew-of-damian-green-porn-claims
  • tlg86 said:

    That's odd. I'd have thought the test of the migration stats was simply a comparison between the 2011 Census and 2011 mid year estimate. There must be more to it that than "have we added in enough births/immigrants and taken away enough deaths/emigrants?"
    I imagine there must be lots of the 'beds in sheds' type immigrants not being picked up on the census.
  • @stephenkb

    My favourite Westminster Twitter is "Wow, the police are pretty shady!" Twitter.

    @stephenkb

    I look forward to it morphing seamlessly to "we should give them whatever powers they ask for" Twitter in, at best, a week's time.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    I don’t disagree with that. But we now accept, all too readily, that institutions can be institutionally biased and that the bad egg excuse is rarely true. There is truth in that because such inimical attitudes and behaviours rarely come out of the blue but are an exaggeration of the culture in which they are tolerated or thrive.

    This is where we are with the police. It’s sad. Dixon of Dock Green retired a long time ago.
    Anyone who attended a demonstration in the Seventies or Eighties would recognise that George Dixon was a fiction. Another Blair (Blair Peach) springs to mind.

    It certainly sounds as if this ex policeman is in the wrong, but we shouldn't tar his whole profession with the same brush.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,504

    I imagine there must be lots of the 'beds in sheds' type immigrants not being picked up on the census.
    But they estimate for people not counted in the Census. You would not believe how much effort we put in to getting Slough right. But yes, one thing could be that they now think the 2011 Census estimation process didn't add in enough people.
  • Anyone who attended a demonstration in the Seventies or Eighties would recognise that George Dixon was a fiction. Another Blair (Blair Peach) springs to mind.

    It certainly sounds as if this ex policeman is in the wrong, but we shouldn't tar his whole profession with the same brush.

    Perhaps the rest of his profession should be publicly criticizing his behaviour in that case.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349

    Off topic, I see some in the Met are continuing to pursue their vendetta against Damian Green, saying he should have resigned a long time ago. Despite the "pornography" being both legal and non-extreme, not having all the evidence anymore and some circumstantial evidence of what may or may not have happened with regard to viewing the material nearly 10 years ago.

    I really find this disgusting. It really has gone some way to changing my views of the police.

    My sympathies are entirely with Damien Green.

    I need to read into a bit more, but the first impressions of the police in how this issue has been strung along are despicable.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    I imagine there must be lots of the 'beds in sheds' type immigrants not being picked up on the census.
    Most illegals and overstayers won’t want to fill in the census form (or any other official form for that matter), no matter how many times they’re told the information won’t be shared with the Home Office.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349
    HYUFD said:

    Ironically the DUP propping up a weak Corbyn minority government along with the LDs, SNP, Plaid and Greens with the Tories still the largest party and Corbyn and Starmer having to complete Brexit themselves would probably be excellent news for the Tories poll rating even if it did mean a spell out of government.

    They would also have opposition almost entirely to themselves.

    HYUFD said:

    Ironically the DUP propping up a weak Corbyn minority government along with the LDs, SNP, Plaid and Greens with the Tories still the largest party and Corbyn and Starmer having to complete Brexit themselves would probably be excellent news for the Tories poll rating even if it did mean a spell out of government.

    They would also have opposition almost entirely to themselves.

    Yes, possibly, given how chaotic it would be. However bad for the party longterm though they need to see this through.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,098
    Sandpit said:

    Most illegals and overstayers won’t want to fill in the census form (or any other official form for that matter), no matter how many times they’re told the information won’t be shared with the Home Office.
    After watching this morning's interview with Lewis, who can blame them :)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,504
    Pulpstar said:

    After watching this morning's interview with Lewis, who can blame them :)
    I haven't worked for the police, but I trust the ONS a lot more with my information than most other organisations.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,098
    edited December 2017
    kle4 said:

    Yes, possibly, given how chaotic it would be. However bad for the party longterm though they need to see this through.
    The DUP won't give confidence and supply to Corbyn. That doesn't mean they won't withdraw it from May, ... but he certainly can't command the house with the current numbers. There would have to be fresh elections.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349
    edited December 2017
    Charles said:

    A bit self incriminating

    * after the force I was ordered to destroy non relevant information but chose not to

    * when I left the force I took a police notebook relating to this politically damaging case

    So hearsay, breach of confidence and relying on stolen evidence. All used to attack a cabinet minister over something that isn't illegal

    Disgusting. Given the stuff with the other officer who had to apologise years ago for lying about being harassed by the tories, it's maddening. If that is the way this went down whatever Green did is minor compared to the disgraceful behaviour, and I dnot initially see a defence, still reading on it. If someone does something wrong it doesn't make someone else doing even more wrong ok.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,320
    DavidL said:

    Tories have always instinctively supported the police. It is the natural response for those with a vested interest in the property laws of a society and the rule of law. But in recent years, since Ian Blair, this has been tested to the limit. The never ending shambles listed in May’s famous speech, the disgraceful and almost certainly illegal conduct in the Green investigation and since, the undoubtedly criminal dishonesty in Plebgate, we are left, particularly in London, with a force that can no longer be trusted or believed.

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.
    I think it was the cash for honours that first sent a shiver down the spines of ordinary citizens. Specificaly when Tony Blair's secretary had her house raided at 6AM by six policemen with several journalists in attendance. It was the first occasion I remember feeing there was an establishment pulling the strings who considered themselves above our elected politicians.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Assuming Jeremy Corbyn would win a general election given that all those older people who abstained in June believing Corbyn was a no hoper and annoyed at the dementia tax would almost certainly turn out in their legions to stop him next year.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Pulpstar said:

    After watching this morning's interview with Lewis, who can blame them :)
    Ha, indeed. The fact is though that in a lot of other countries no-one illegally there will ever give their name to anyone official, because deportation will swiftly follow. It’s bloody difficult to get deported from the UK unless you get arrested, and even then you get a free lawyer on legal aid if you want to appeal any decisions. Most other countries put you on a plane first and you can appeal later at your own cost if you want to come back.
  • Roger said:

    I think it was the cash for honours that first sent a shiver down the spines of ordinary citizens. Specificaly when Tony Blair's secretary had her house raided at 6AM by six policemen with several journalists in attendance. It was the first occasion I remember feeing there was an establishment pulling the strings who considered themselves above our elected politicians.
    You really do consistently pick the most entertaining examples of what motivates "ordinary citizens", Roger.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Does "withdraw support" mean they'd vote against/abstain in a confidence vote, or just that they wouldn't promise not to?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349
    edited December 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    Employees are under a duty of confidentiality to their employers. And this duty continues even after they leave in respect of information gained in the course of their employment. A fortiori for information about the details of a police investigation. Revealing confidential information - and the information he has revealed is confidential - is a breach of that duty. Wanting to defend his former boss is not a sufficient justification for doing so. The proper course would be to raise it in private to those doing the inquiry into Mr Green. Not in public. Not to the press.

    This is ABC stuff for investigators. That the police appear to be unaware of these basic rules or willing to ignore them is simply wrong and worrying, given the powers they have.
    Given the police for years had advice about automatically believing accusations of hiatoric abuse unless the accused could prove they were untrue, resulting in such cases as the attempted implication of guilt of Heath by the police to save face, I am increasingly worried. As sir Richard Henriques reported it was a total mess. You investigate thoroughly, but not automatically believe.

    I am stunned anyone would suggest defending a former boss is justification for what appears to be happening.

    Green himself is practically immaterial to this it seems, given these implications.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    tlg86 said:

    I haven't worked for the police, but I trust the ONS a lot more with my information than most other organisations.
    That’s because you know who the ONS are and what they do - and importantly don’t do with the data.

    Illegal immigrants don’t necessarily have that knowledge, they just see “officials” collecting names and addresses for “the government”
  • I was pretty pissed off by Bob Quick's initial accusations against Green, for all the arguments about confidentiality and the like.

    However, I talked it through with someone who disciplines coppers and their view was that this was perfectly ok. There is a strong public interest defence. looking at porn at work on work computers is misconduct in public office. He is in effect deputy PM so should be public knowledge.

    I can see why they didn't bring that at the time. When they were being accused of a politically motivated raid of his office, to have then charged him with something unrelated like this would have just underlined the banana republic nature of the investigation.

    Still, leaves a bad taste and does erode my trust in the police. That said, the Met is an exceptionally bad police force and most others in England and Wales are much better so don't tar all coppers with the Met's failings.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,667
    edited December 2017
    Nigelb said:



    I don't care much about Green one way or the other, but the police behaviour is, on the face of it, absolutely unacceptable. To criticise it is not 'social media lynching'.

    A detail that I've noticed, reading the story more closely - Lewis says that the porn was not "extreme" (whatever that means). That simultaneously reinforces his credibility (if he was just out to get Green, why hold back?) and undermines the credibility of the earlier reports (which IIRC said that the material was extreme enough to be illegal a few months later).

    All very odd, regardless of the rights and wrongs. A more general point is that we are still hung up as a society about porn, however legal. If it was alleged that Green had cookery recipes on his work computer, it would be evidence of non-work material in exactly the same way, but I don't believe that anyone would turn a hair.

    As an IT manager I once came across an employee perusing a dating site in his lunch break, using his work computer. I decided it was no worse than reading the paper or going for a walk, and left him to it. If he'd been looking at legal porn I think I'd have asked him not to. So I'm as inconsistent as anyone.
  • DavidL said:

    If that was the objective it succeeded. It’s time some pensions were removed.

    Nope - I really dislike this call for pensions to be removed from whomever's hit the news (mostly public servants but there have been some private sector examples too). Pensions are deferred salary and should be treated as such; bad behaviour should be punished via the civil or criminal law.
  • Does "withdraw support" mean they'd vote against/abstain in a confidence vote, or just that they wouldn't promise not to?

    I suspect it depends on the specific issue on why the confidence motion was triggered.

    Because of the intricacies of the FTPA confidence votes aren't what they used to be.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,098
    A full report into Orgreave would be politically smart for the Tories. It is coming when the Tories are next out of power (Which is a political certainty at some point in the future).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    edited December 2017
    Green is definitely a lay for next cabinet member out. There’s no way the PM will let him resign over this issue, when there’s so many unanswered questions about the conduct of others in the case - stretching back to the initial raid on his office a decade ago.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,242
    edited December 2017
    Yorkcity said:

    I agree over the two cases you mention.However I do not agree with you use of the John Reid quote regarding the Police, in most circumstances they do a fantastic job.
    I haven't used a John Reid quote. Everything I said wad my own opinion and nothing more.
  • Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?
  • Sandpit said:

    Green is definitely a lay for next cabinet member out. There’s no way the PM will let him resign over this issue, when there’s so many unanswered questions about the conduct of others in the case - stretching back to the initial raid on his office a decade ago.
    He might have to go for other reasons though.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    Good Manufacturing PMI figures this morning

    "“UK manufacturing shifted up a gear in November, with growth of output, new orders and employment all gathering pace. On its current course, manufacturing production is rising at a quarterly rate approaching 2%, providing a real boost to the pace of broader economic expansion. "

    https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/de9d7f6d469c4b7c9f9d18dd5d7776ea

    I'd think the key will be, whether manufacturing starts to make longer term capital investment that allows output to continue to grow or whether this manufacturing growth is a short term burst as manufacturers run down their equipment in anticipation of poorer EU export opportunities. This was the Treasury view of Brexit, that exporting would actually drop (grow more slowly) as capital investment was shifted elsewhere in the world and UK manufacturing capacity decreased.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Does "withdraw support" mean they'd vote against/abstain in a confidence vote, or just that they wouldn't promise not to?

    And if the DUP abstain a confidence motion the government still wins, they’d need to actively vote against to defeat the government.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349

    There's also the data protection legislation to be considered. This seems to have been breached spectacularly in multiple ways.
    There are increasing powers for fining holders of information for breaches, as I understand it, how does that apply to individuals.

    I know many good and decent police officers, but stuff like this and the outright lies in pleb gate really get my hackles up, I cannot stand abuse of authority or ignoring proper procedures on the basis that overall someone does good or for personal reasons. It's why I find it hard to sympathise these days with cliché rule breaking coppers in tv shows, unless it is acknowledged such arrogant use of power and ignoring process is crossing a line.
  • AJKAJK Posts: 20
    I think if Corbyn steps aside for Thornberry, Labour could take a huge number of Tory marginals. Thieve people won’t vote for Marxism, but would find Mrs Thornberry’s traditional soft left Labourism acceptable. Jeremy could then retire to great applause as the person who helped bring the Labour Party within touching distance of government.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
  • AJK said:

    I think if Corbyn steps aside for Thornberry, Labour could take a huge number of Tory marginals. Thieve people won’t vote for Marxism, but would find Mrs Thornberry’s traditional soft left Labourism acceptable. Jeremy could then retire to great applause as the person who helped bring the Labour Party within touching distance of government.

    I think imagining any possible change as only having positive effects is somewhat naive.
  • MaxPB said:

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,380

    I was pretty pissed off by Bob Quick's initial accusations against Green, for all the arguments about confidentiality and the like.

    However, I talked it through with someone who disciplines coppers and their view was that this was perfectly ok. There is a strong public interest defence. looking at porn at work on work computers is misconduct in public office. He is in effect deputy PM so should be public knowledge.

    I can see why they didn't bring that at the time. When they were being accused of a politically motivated raid of his office, to have then charged him with something unrelated like this would have just underlined the banana republic nature of the investigation.

    Still, leaves a bad taste and does erode my trust in the police. That said, the Met is an exceptionally bad police force and most others in England and Wales are much better so don't tar all coppers with the Met's failings.

    I don't think that would count as misconduct in public office. It would at worst, be a breach of one's terms of employment.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    Then what's all the fuss about?!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Mr. Palmer, what does it matter if it's 'extreme'?

    Surely legal and illegal are the only terms that matter?

    “Extreme” porn is a legal definition from the CJA 2008 (passed after the Green office raid) and is illegal to possess.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Roger said:

    I think it was the cash for honours that first sent a shiver down the spines of ordinary citizens. Specificaly when Tony Blair's secretary had her house raided at 6AM by six policemen with several journalists in attendance. It was the first occasion I remember feeing there was an establishment pulling the strings who considered themselves above our elected politicians.
    I felt uneasy a while ago when the Police raided the Maxwell sons homes at 6 in the morning , with all the media attendance.I believe one of the wife's shouted from an upper bedroom " ....off or we will call the police" They replied we are the police.The tipping off the media of famous people in custody has been a long term problem,.I suppose it only takes a phone call from an officer with no respect for the position he or she holds in society.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349
    MaxPB said:

    "Extreme" is illegal in the UK.

    This government is anti-freedom. They censor, introduce "hate speech" laws which impinge on free expression, lock up people for posting stuff on Twitter or Facebook.
    That's true, but laws are not retroactive (except in very rare cases?) so the detail is irrelevant
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,380
    Pulpstar said:

    A full report into Orgreave would be politically smart for the Tories. It is coming when the Tories are next out of power (Which is a political certainty at some point in the future).
    I doubt if either then or now, many Tories sympathise with the pickets.
  • Mr. Max, can't disagree with any of that. And the other side are even worse.

    Rather wish we had a First Amendment style law.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349
    edited December 2017
    MaxPB said:

    Then what's all the fuss about?!
    It would be poor behaviour, but the police involved should not be pesuing vendettas like this as a result.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    edited December 2017
    Yorkcity said:

    I felt uneasy a while ago when the Police raided the Maxwell sons homes at 6 in the morning , with all the media attendance.I believe one of the wife's shouted from an upper bedroom " ....off or we will call the police" They replied we are the police.The tipping off the media of famous people in custody has been a long term problem,.I suppose it only takes a phone call from an officer with no respect for the position he or she holds in society.
    Cliff Richard, for a more recent example. That cost the taxpayer £1m in compensation after the police dragged the BBC (complete with helicopter) olong on the raid of his house.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349

    He might have to go for other reasons though.
    These ex officers will hope so - they will claim vindication even though their disgraceful behaviour us in no way erased even if Green has done something else more serious he resigns over.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    I suspect it depends on the specific issue on why the confidence motion was triggered.

    Because of the intricacies of the FTPA confidence votes aren't what they used to be.
    Then the question is, in practice, would the opposition be likely to be able to craft a vote which served as a confidence motion and which everyone but the Tories would vote against?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,098
    Sean_F said:

    I doubt if either then or now, many Tories sympathise with the pickets.
    There weren't many Tories present in the Liverpool end at Hillsborough or facing the NI police at Bloody Sunday (Those were a magnitude of order more serious than Orgreave where noone was killed) either. It didn't stop David Cameron from doing the right thing.
  • MaxPB said:

    Then what's all the fuss about?!
    It is a vendetta by some against Damian Green and the Tories.

    They don't like the Tories.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,251
    A(Met)CAB

    The real politicisiation of the Met goes back to when Tony Blair ensured no junior coppers carried the can for the senior coppers' failings over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. In the end, none of the officers faced disciplinary charges. He was "their guy" who looked out for them.

    He also looked out for the senior cops. In the end, the office of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner got off with just a fine. No pensions were harmed in the course of this whitewash.

    There's an interesting story to be told, of those hours and days after the shooting....
  • Then the question is, in practice, would the opposition be likely to be able to craft a vote which served as a confidence motion and which everyone but the Tories would vote against?
    Even a budget vote is no longer considered a de facto confidence motion.

    It has to be an explicit no confidence vote.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,504
    Sean_F said:

    I don't think that would count as misconduct in public office. It would at worst, be a breach of one's terms of employment.
    And when it comes to MPs, there are no terms of employment other than what happens at the ballot box.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Pulpstar said:

    There weren't many Tories present in the Liverpool end at Hillsborough or facing the NI police at Bloody Sunday (Those were a magnitude of order more serious than Orgreave where noone was killed) either. It didn't stop David Cameron from doing the right thing.
    Two quite amazing Parliamentary speeches from Cameron on Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday. Moved a lot of people to tears, even political opponents.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    But it wasn't illegal at the time.
    True , however we do not pay our public servants to watch such material in work time.Sutely there must be a code of conduct, in what , an how long you can use the work computer for personal use.There is in most large organisations.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    It is a vendetta by some against Damian Green and the Tories.

    They don't like the Tories.
    I know that, but isn't it time for the PM to just say that and eviscerate the police?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,251

    Even a budget vote is no longer considered a de facto confidence motion.

    It has to be an explicit no confidence vote.
    The great unknown is whether the SNP would vote to bring down the Government (and thereby, put at risk many of their seats in Scotland, virtually all of which are know marginal/super-marginal) - or simply abstain. The question then is whether abstaining is seen as propping up the Tories becausue the SNP are "frit" - or if they can spin it as just letting Westminster stew in its own juices. A view on this from North of the Border would be welcomed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    A(Met)CAB

    The real politicisiation of the Met goes back to when Tony Blair ensured no junior coppers carried the can for the senior coppers' failings over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. In the end, none of the officers faced disciplinary charges. He was "their guy" who looked out for them.

    He also looked out for the senior cops. In the end, the office of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner got off with just a fine. No pensions were harmed in the course of this whitewash.

    There's an interesting story to be told, of those hours and days after the shooting....
    No junior copper carried the can, fair enough. But what of the punishment to the most senior copper on duty, who made the call - Ms Cressida Dick?
  • MaxPB said:

    I know that, but isn't it time for the PM to just say that and eviscerate the police?
    She doesn't want to do that if Damian Green is forced out for other reasons.
  • We're staying in the EU via the back door, the great betrayal continues.

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/936535226490245120
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    We're staying in the EU via the back door, the great betrayal continues.

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/936535226490245120

    What control do you think the ECJ actually exerts over the nation states under this agreement?
  • Yorkcity said:

    True , however we do not pay our public servants to watch such material in work time.Sutely there must be a code of conduct, in what , an how long you can use the work computer for personal use.There is in most large organisations.
    For all we know it might have been accidentally downloaded, or he might have been sent a dodgy link.

    Apparently some porn sites are a pop up window nightmare I am told.
  • TonyE said:

    What control do you think the ECJ actually exerts over the nation states under this agreement?
    About as much as Euroatom.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349
    Yorkcity said:

    True , however we do not pay our public servants to watch such material in work time.Sutely there must be a code of conduct, in what , an how long you can use the work computer for personal use.There is in most large organisations.
    It would be wrong of hin to do it, and in many organisations you might get sacked for it. MPS are sacked at the ballot box however. And it isn't for police to leak to the media in pursuit of an MPS resignation. That's one reason even though he may well have said pleb that Mitchell was hounded by liars in the police federation who wanted his head, proven on tape, in addition to the fake police witness.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349
    Pulpstar said:

    There weren't many Tories present in the Liverpool end at Hillsborough or facing the NI police at Bloody Sunday (Those were a magnitude of order more serious than Orgreave where noone was killed) either. It didn't stop David Cameron from doing the right thing.
    I miss Cameron
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    TonyE said:

    What control do you think the ECJ actually exerts over the nation states under this agreement?
    None at all, he’s just trolling.

    Associate membership of some EU organisations such as EASA and Euratom is commonsensical.
  • Sean_F said:

    I don't think that would count as misconduct in public office. It would at worst, be a breach of one's terms of employment.
    Every place I've ever worked at has disciplined employees for looking at porn on work computers. There have been sackings, and in my current job, merely looking at porn on your mobile would be very dicey. Aside from that, what sort of moron would use a work's pc to look at porn?
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    Sean_F said:

    I don't think that would count as misconduct in public office. It would at worst, be a breach of one's terms of employment.
    Certainly most employers would have an absolute ban on porn in their IT policy and viewing it in work time and storing it on company networks would be a sacking offence.

    And Green unwisely issued a blanket denial when the allegations first surfaced - this has weakened his position.

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Sandpit said:

    No junior copper carried the can, fair enough. But what of the punishment to the most senior copper on duty, who made the call - Ms Cressida Dick?
    Why should there be any punishment, she had to make the call on the facts given to her in real time .Massive responsibility for. Gold commander in such a situation.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,349

    Certainly most employers would have an absolute ban on porn in their IT policy and viewing it in work time and storing it on company networks would be a sacking offence.

    And Green unwisely issued a blanket denial when the allegations first surfaced - this has weakened his position.

    Perhaps, though the overreach of these officers has bolstered it in some eyes to compensate.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    For all we know it might have been accidentally downloaded, or he might have been sent a dodgy link.

    Apparently some porn sites are a pop up window nightmare I am told.
    Thousands of images? By accident? Seems very unlikely. But if it was the case the correct course would be to report it to IT and get them removed asap. Not to examine them in detail during working hours.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,380
    Pulpstar said:

    There weren't many Tories present in the Liverpool end at Hillsborough or facing the NI police at Bloody Sunday (Those were a magnitude of order more serious than Orgreave where noone was killed) either. It didn't stop David Cameron from doing the right thing.
    I'm very grateful to the Thatcher government for having brought an end to mass picketing. Orgreave was part of that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,251
    edited December 2017
    Yorkcity said:

    True , however we do not pay our public servants to watch such material in work time.Sutely there must be a code of conduct, in what , an how long you can use the work computer for personal use.There is in most large organisations.
    OK, I'm not automatically leaping to the defence of Damian Green here - but let's take a leap and assume a generic MP was looking at (legal) porn on a Westminster issued lap-top computer. And let's say the bulk of it was watched, in amongst writing correspondence and reading a constant stream of distracting e-mails, from 7.00pm to midnight - when Jo Public could be curled up, watching porn in the comfort of their own home. And so might the MP - if it was Friday, Saturday, Sunday night, or when the House wasn't sitting. Which raises the question, are MPs at all times public servants? When are they allowed to be "off duty", doing what ther constituents do? Do we own them 24/7?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Sandpit said:

    Cliff Richard, for a more recent example. That cost the taxpayer £1m in compensation after the police dragged the BBC (complete with helicopter) olong on the raid of his house.
    Yes totally agree , Sir Cliff Richard was another example of the Poliice and the media, showing no respect .
  • tlg86 said:

    And when it comes to MPs, there are no terms of employment other than what happens at the ballot box.
    Taxpayer provided computer, provided solely for their work as an MP in taxpayer provided office.

    If this had been his personal computer at home then book would be thrown, except there is no punishment since Quick and co aren't coppers any more and they can't take the pensions away.
This discussion has been closed.