Damien Green: Copper Should Be Prosecuted

Discussion in 'Speakers Corner' started by bradders, Dec 5, 2017.

  1. Yes, that is exactly the point. The triviality of the original issue, whatever it was, fades into the background. And whether it should or should not have been made public is a red herring. The serious current matter is about whether a senior cabinet minister is publicly lying or telling the truth. If it turns out Green is lying his position probably becomes untenable, or at least is much weakened. If he lies under oath or in Parliament (regardless of what about) he obviously must go.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. True but it goes both ways. Remember the Archer libel case, the compensation paid to him and ultimately his jail sentence?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. From what the ex-cop said they found a directory of thumbnail images only.

    My understanding is that is was a laptop Green's office, amongst several computers shared at that location.
  4. I listened to the policeman on radio 4. He claims that the thumbnails were on a computer that was used by Green for emails etc. There is apparently a computer file usage & time log showing viewing of the pics and the writing of emails which effectively prove his allegation. I would like to know whether it is the police officer is lying, or Green.

    Green imo has no option but to release the information exposing the policeman or stand down.
  5. I see, he didn't say that in the interview I listened to the other day, thanks.
  6. "In the latest wave of allegations against Mr Green, former detective Neil Lewis disclosed his notes from the raid and claimed that on some days porn was browsed and open on the computer for hours.

    He (Neil Lewis, Detective) told the BBC: 'The computer was in Mr Green's office, on his desk, logged in, his account, his name.

    'In between browsing pornography, he was sending emails from his account, his personal account, reading documents... it was ridiculous to suggest anybody else could have done it'.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. equally, at least one MP has said that her staff often answer her emails etc and know her log in details.

    I remember a cleaner back in my days with AA based out of Halesowen who managed to get hold of someones log in details and spent half the nightshift watching porn on teh work PC. Its only because of the time stamping the employee wasn't fired. Thats and the fella getting caught banging one out...

    BTW back in 2008 we weren't in the cyber security space we are now. Highly likely (as in very likely) that someone in that position would trust those around them with their log in details.

    You will never prove Green did look at porn: you will prove that said copers have broken confidentiality and, I'm sure, some kind of law,
  8. Thats what he said, but he also admitted he wasn't there and no camera evidence or other evidence so if someone else logged in, it could be theirs.
  10. So again some ex copper release his notes which I’m sure is illegal
    To put allegations that he knows he can’t prove prior to being on the radio against someone who can’t win what ever he answers

    But apparently that’s in the public interest !

    Sorry that’s a load of twaddle
    • Agree Agree x 4
  11. Indeed, which is why Green's accusation that the copper was lying was both unnecessary and stupid.
  12. What was his alternative? I'd love to hear it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. So the police have rules about investigations, confidentiality and serving officers, otherwise we would have been having a related conversation ten years ago. A breach would have scuppered the investigation.

    The workaround is for police officers to retire and then release the information? A second bite at the cherry.

    Hands up everyone who is comfortable with this!
    • Agree Agree x 4
  14. If the cop genuinely thought something had gone on there, you have to ask why he held onto it for 7 years instead of handing it in at the time to be re-investigated as a seperete issue.

    At the moment it looks like it was decided nothing found was relevant to the original reason the offices were raided, the cop got pissed off so decided to keep official documents when he retired so he could settle a score later. I do not feel it is coincidence that he had the non investigation material for 7 years and just "happened" to release it when the government is at it's weakest
  15. There is a huge difference between saying "I, did not do it" and "Joe Bloggs, my accuser, is lying".

    A simple statement to the effect that it was a shared computer in a shared office space and a denial of any responsibility for what was on it would have sufficed.

    Watching porn on an office computer, whilst stupid, is not illegal. In these cases it is the botched cover up that causes the downfall not the original act.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. There was nothing to investigate, whatever it was is being described as "legal porn".

    But I agree, this was not a coincidental release of information.
  17. why didnt he report it 7years ago?. hmm, could it have been presented to him as, its more than your jobs worth?.
    it happens. i have a vid where a procurator fiscal of all things, says just that, to an ex MSP regarding PFI corruption at an Ayrshire council.
  18. Have you never listened to radio or TV interviews? All paxman-esque you can imagine ‘so he’s lying then...he’s lying then...he’s lying then’ constinually for 10 minuets every interview.
  19. Indeed. The cover up becomes more significant than the original issue, always. This is because the original act may have been no more than a long-ago foolish error (and who among us hasn't made lots of those?) but the cover up involves recent deliberate self-serving lying.

    The lesson is that if you are caught out having made a mistake it is better to own up frankly and apologise sincerely; you will probably be forgiven, and the whole thing is soon forgotten. If you deny it, and try to wriggle out of it, the effect is to make you look evasive, slippery, mendacious, and complacent. It's hard to recover from that, Mr Green.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. The English language is extremely subtle.

    I believe that accusing someone of "being a liar" is potentially slanderous whilst saying "I don't believe you" is not.

    Maybe @Pete1950 could confirm ?