Page 4 of 4

Re: Damian Green

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:30 am
by Hairyloon
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.

Re: Damian Green

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:19 pm
by Goldensyrup
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.

Re: Damian Green

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:44 pm
by atticus
Yawn. Same guy keeps going. I suggest he puts up with his threat to sue DG, or shuts up.

Re: Damian Green

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:20 pm
by atticus
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.

Re: Damian Green

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:43 am
by shootist
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?

Re: Damian Green

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:59 am
by dls
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.

Re: Damian Green

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:14 pm
by Hairyloon
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.

Re: Damian Green

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:07 pm
by shootist
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.