Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Damian Green

Judicial review, activities of government, local and national etc.

Re: Damian Green

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:30 am

dls wrote:Which does not apply univerally when an account is for the MPs commons business. His staff would, entirely properly, need and have access to his mail both in and out.

Which can easily be achieved by giving their logins permission for that access.
There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour. Imagine what might happen if the whole office shared a password and somebody downloaded porn: how would you begin to find out who was the culprit?
And porn is trivial compared to some of the things they could get up to.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10089
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Damian Green

Postby Goldensyrup » Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:19 pm

And straight from the BBC today.

A former senior police officer has demanded cabinet minister Damian Green publicly retracts a claim that he lied about pornography being found on a computer in the MP's office in 2008.

Bob Quick said he would consider legal action against the first secretary of state if he did not do so.
In a tweet, Mr Green had described Mr Quick as "untrustworthy" and accused him of making "untrue" allegations.

Mr Green denies downloading or watching pornography on his work computers.
Goldensyrup
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:52 pm

Re: Damian Green

Postby atticus » Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:44 pm

Yawn. Same guy keeps going. I suggest he puts up with his threat to sue DG, or shuts up.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19873
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Damian Green

Postby atticus » Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:20 pm

Can I say that I find this endless repetition of the latest empty bit of "news" totally boring. If Goldensyrup would like to find some answers to the very pertinent questions that have been asked here, then maybe some legal discussion might be possible.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19873
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Damian Green

Postby shootist » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:43 am

If there had been 'legal porn' on DG's computer then by now it seems certain that it would have been put into the public domain. As things are at the present, the whole debate amounts to "Oh yes he did." -v- "Oh no I didn't". I can't think that there will be any surviving evidence that the porn existed, but of some did turn up, I think it would be almost impossible to prove that DG was responsible for downloading it or even knew of it.

So Bob Quick is considering legal action if DG doesn't withdraw his statements about him. The dangers of such actions have often been discussed on this forum. Mr Quick will either have to risk his significant pension pot, not to mention his house, or persuade his legal insurance company to take the case. Any bets they would?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3558
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Damian Green

Postby dls » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:59 am

The denial has (so far as I have heard) very precise. The denial does not say that the images (deleted thumbnails) were not found, only that he did not download them.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12263
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Damian Green

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:14 pm

dls wrote:The denial has (so far as I have heard) very precise. The denial does not say that the images (deleted thumbnails) were not found, only that he did not download them.


I also noted the precision of the denial: it leaves open a number of possibilities.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10089
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Damian Green

Postby shootist » Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:07 pm

An imprecise denial would likely have been interpreted by the media as an admission. A person accused of a crime might decently deny committing it. He doesn't have to say that it wasn't committed at all.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3558
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Previous

Return to Administrative Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest