Porn scandal MP, Damian Green resigns

[Gingernaut]

Breaking news from the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42434802

Good riddance to bad rubbish AFAIC.

And of course he admitted lying twice about the stash - why he had to resign - so it's not as if he could lie a third time about being the owner of it.

Porn accessed multiple times in between Green sending Emails on that sma emachine

That is what the ex-police officer is now saying. He originally said in a recorded interview that he had no way of knowing whether or not it was Green. Obviously he felt that "someone in Green's office" - his original allegation - wasn't having enough impact. Without a proper forensic examination of the PC, which was not undertaken, there is no way of knowing whether the porn was accessed between the emails being sent as alleged or, indeed, of knowing whether Green sent the emails himself or someone in his office sent them on his behalf. No computer forensic experts were involved in the raid so the ex-officer is guessing (or, worse, just making things up).

of course anyone could choose to download their whole wank library on their boss's machine

The officer making the allegations has at no point said it was Green's PC. He has consistently described it as a PC in Green's office. Given his vendetta against Green I think we can be pretty sure it wasn't Green's PC.

None of this means it wasn't Green downloading porn. But nothing said by the police officer making the allegations conclusively proves it was Green. And bluntly I hope they throw the book at the officer. He has retained a notebook after being ordered to destroy it and is disclosing confidential details of non-criminal behaviour discovered during an investigation but unrelated to that investigation. It is right that Green has been forced to resign after lying but the officer's behaviour is appalling.

Well as usual it's not the (not actually a) crime, it's the cover up.

Porn on a computer in Green's office, used by other people, isn't something he should have needed to lie about.

But, he did.

For those who insist the machine in Green's office wasn't exclusively his:
Who downloads a huge porn stash - 1000s of wank materials - onto a machine in their boss's office ?

Why lie twice about someone else's porn stash ?

His porn stash was found only as a result of a police investigation into leaks against Home Office leaks that HE instigated

• he incited / organised a Tory civil servant to hunt out and leak any imformation that could embarrassing a Labour govt

So, very hypocritical / politically biased to complain about Green being leaked against - poetic justice, imo.

Do you want the book thrown at Green for inciting civil servants to leak ?
Or is leaking only bad against a Tory govt, good against Labour ?

In a trial, I'd fancy the chances of any former cops using the Public Interest defence to out a sleazy politician.

Also, I doubt if the govt would want the embarrassment, especially as the defence would go into detail about the porn and the fact that Green lied to an official enquiry. At least twice. Any other unpublished sleaze would be fair game too.

“I can’t imagine a jury would find unanimously that it was not in the public interest to put into the public domain that an MP’s computer was being used to regularly to watch pornography at his place of work.”

The info would have come out anyway:
A newspaper got hold of [ former Met assistant commissioner] Bob Quick's draft statement to the Leveson inquiry into press standards,
which contained the pornography claims - they were removed from his final version.

Quick then contacted Sue Gray, who conducted the Cabinet Office inquiry into Green, to tell her what he knew.

Quick testified to Gray, but this was done privately and as part of an official inquiry, not a leak.

For those who insist the machine in Green's office wasn't exclusively his

You continue to insist that it was when Quick has made no such statement. Given Quick's well documented vendetta against Green I am certain he would have said if it was Green's PC.

Who downloads a huge porn stash - 1000s of wank materials - onto a machine in their boss's office

Do you want a list? Lots of people do.

So, very hypocritical / politically biased to complain about Green being leaked against

Not at all hypocritical or politically biased. The police were required to destroy all material following the original investigation against Green. One of the officers has not only failed to follow this instruction, he has retained his police notebook, which is not allowed, and has given information to the press that he was required to keep confidential. If the police feel they can get away with this kind of behaviour targeting a senior government minister, what protection do the rest of us have? It is not just Tories making this point. People across the political spectrum have done so.

An opposition politician getting information from a civil servant that might help embarrass the government is on a totally different scale to the police behaviour in this case. And no, a public interest defence should not work if the police officers involved are prosecuted. It might be interesting to the public but that does not mean there was any public interest in releasing confidential information about non-criminal behaviour discovered in the course of an inquiry.

Also, I doubt if the govt would want the embarrassment, especially as the defence would go into detail about the porn and the fact that Green lied to an official enquiry

I doubt they would be allowed to do so. Detail of the porn would be irrelevant to the case, as would Green's actions in lying to an enquiry. None of that would help to establish the innocence of the officers involved.

The officer making the allegations has at no point said it was Green's PC. He has consistently described it as a PC in Green's office. Given his vendetta against Green I think we can be pretty sure it wasn't Green's PC.

What he did say was that all the porn was downloaded and viewed

whilst Damian Green was logged into the computer

whilst Damian Drren was sending emails from that computer
and whilst Damian Green was writing letters on that computer.

You dont have to be much of a detective to work out who was downloading that porn.

But there's no need to prove the machine is exclusively Green's, for him to be in the shit.

There was a thread a few days back about "what was the moment when you knew someone was lying" - and I thought of Damien Green, even though he hadn't admitted it then.

Because if any of us on this thread were told there was porn on our work computer - especially a shared computer - I'm pretty sure our responses would be along the lines of "OMG, really? I've no idea how that got there."

Not, "No there isn't."

How could Green possibly know there was no porn on a computer? He couldn't, even for a machine that was primarily his. Even less possible for a shared machine.

So right from the off, his reaction looked like he was covering up. Which immediately begs the question, why?

"An opposition politician getting information from a civil servant that might help embarrass the government is on a totally different scale to the police behaviour in this case."

Green wasn't a passive recipient of a leak
He organised and incited a Tory sympathiser - who wanted a career in the Tory party - to join the Home Office staff and to deliberately hunt for formation that could damage the govt

All while that Tory sympathiser was being paid by our taxes to be a civil servant, not a politician spy

Politicians do get destroyed for political dirty tricks

• I remember the long "plumbers" saga that led to President Nixon being forced to resign, my initial disbelief that he would instigate such sabotage of his opponents.

My reaction to porn found on a work machine in my office - if I were accused of downloading it - would be to demand a thorough investigation to find out who it belonged to.

Not to use my power to lie and obstruct the investigation

But every employer I've had since Tinternet began would have demanded the same - to know who is downloading porn, so they can sack him

Exactly, BigChoc. Green was informed about the porn on the computer at the time, in 2008. He was an opposition MP without a big office. If he hadn't been involved in downloading it, the obvious next step would have been to run an investigation and sack/discipline the offender. Then he could have answered later questions about the incident openly and honestly.

I don't want a situation where both major parties use spies and dirty tricks skirting the edge of legality.
And if Tories get away with such organised dirty tricks, then Labour will probably follow

We need to bring the hammer down, to stop this trend

UK politics is in enough of a mess already
UK politicians already have a very poor public image;
most of the public despise them, don't believe or trust them - very damaging for society and potentially dangerous if hard times come.

" Detail of the porn would be irrelevant to the case, as would Green's actions in lying to an enquiry. None of that would help to establish the innocence of the officers involved"

A public interest defence is legally a legitimate one to offer, hard to exclude unless the trial is just a gixed sham

A good defence lawyer will bring it in - difficult to avoid if the charge is leaking that porn

That lawyer will also bring in Green and are entitled to attack his credibly - "you lied before to an official enquiry, so why should we believe you now"

Juries will probably remember Green is a sleazy lying bastard, as soon as they hear about porn on an HoC machine.
Looking at past cases, juries have refused to convict whistleblowers where they feel politicians have acted badly,
even where the judge & prosecution try to force them to disregard certain inconvenient facts

attack his credibility

You dont have to be much of a detective to work out who was downloading that porn

Yes you do. The computer was not forensically examined so every one of those statements could be wrong. Remember that the officer making these allegations originally stated that he had no evidence as to who downloaded the porn and no way of knowing whether or not it was Green.

Green wasn't a passive recipient of a leak

Agreed. I'm not saying his actions with Galley were justified. But it is still true that his actions were on a totally different scale to the behaviour of the ex-police officers in this case.

And if Tories get away with such organised dirty tricks, then Labour will probably follow

If that is a reference to Green/Galley, both major parties have been doing it for a long time. The press have also organised similar leaks against governments of all colours.

A public interest defence is legally a legitimate one to offer, hard to exclude unless the trial is just a gixed sham

A public interest defence has to be relevant. Is there a public interest in knowing that an unidentified person in Green's office had viewed legal porn on a work PC? The answer to that is clearly no. It may be interesting to the public but it is not in the public interest. We know that attempts are made to access porn from PCs inside parliament roughly 700 times a day. This has not added anything significant to our knowledge.

Even if the answer was yes, the revelation is in the public interest, it does not mean details of the porn can be introduced. The jury does not need to know details of the porn to make a decision.

That lawyer will also bring in Green and are entitled to attack his credibly

The lawyer would be a complete idiot to do so. Green is not making any allegations in the case. If the defence called him he would be a hostile witness - defences prefer to avoid those if possible. If the prosecution called him (possible) the defence might bring that up but his evidence will be peripheral to the case (if it happens). The central issue is that a police officer has retained a notebook that he was ordered to destroy, it remains in his possession despite the fact he is no longer a police officer and he has revealed confidential information about non-criminal behaviour. The primary witnesses would come from the Met, not from Green.

Looking at past cases, juries have refused to convict whistleblowers where they feel politicians have acted badly

Occasionally. But this isn't a whistleblowing case. If Green had not denied the initial report of porn being found on a PC in his office he would still be in office. The police in this case have not revealed any criminal behaviour. They have acted as arbiters of society's morals.

They have acted as arbiters of society's morals.

Now hold on a minute.

Quick didn't publicise the porn back when it was found in 2008. Not even when he was attacked for the original raid in pursuit of the leaks, and not when his wife's business was targeted by the Daily Mail.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/21/how-decade-old-row-police-raid-damian-green-fall

He brought the porn to the attention of the head of propriety and ethics for the Cabinet Office, Sue Gray, when she was conducting an official inquiry into Damian Green for alleged sexual misconduct. And he did so privately.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/22/damian-green-case-former-police-officers-public-interest-brian-paddick

That's hardly "acting as the arbiter of society's morals".

And if that's Quick "conducting a vendetta", he's not very good at it, is he? What with the failing to publicise the material for nearly 10 years and mentioning it in private to a relevant inquiry.

And what would you think if Sue Gray's inquiry into Damian Green's alleged sexual misconduct had been kept in ignorance of the fact that there was a strong (but as yet unproven) possibility that he not only watched porn, but that he watched extreme porn while conducting his Parliamentary business?

BTW, I hope the actions of Bob Quick and the detective, Neil Lewis are examined, and if they're in breach of a code and not covered by a "public interest" defence, then that they're duly sanctioned.

But they seem to think that a public interest defence is justified, and in the context of the inquiry into Kate Maltby's allegations, I can see why.

"Green ... would be a hostile witness" - nope
One clear exception to any supposed rule that defence lawyers avoid them
The longer that sleazy politician is in the witness box, the more the jury will despise him

A gift to any defence lawyer
Especially in the current climate of a public angry at the sleazy ruling elite
Prosecution have to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt - the defence only need 3 of the 12 on that jury to decide it might just be in the public interest to bring down basically the deputy PM who lied twice to an official enquiry.

Juries often refuse to deliver verdicts that the establishment demand
I remember the refusal to convict Clive Posting over his Belgrano leak - and the spluttering fury of the Tory govt & supporters
The judge stated "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is" and basically instructed the jury to convict
The jury said "nope" and acquitted

most jury members would despise sleazy Green and feel sympathy for a police officer

• and it seems only one at most "leaked" - Quick only gave evidence to an official enquiry, which helped prove the deputy PM a liar

it should be the duty of police officers to cooperate with official enquiries and volunteer information
even if the person being investigated lies because he thinks his powerful friends had the police evidence against him destroyed.

That is what is really angering the powerful: they thought they had squashed this sleazy scandal against one of their own and ordered the evidence destroyed
So they are going after the police, instead of the lying porno sleaze-bag Green
They are furious because they think they should be above the rules for the plebs

Maybe this will make some politicians realise they won't always be above the law
They may not pay the penalty the first time, but there is always the risk their sleazy past will catch up with them the next time

Mind you, not much of a penalty:
Green remains an MP and gets a golden handshake of £17,000 as severance payment from his ministerial job
Not many people who resign after lying about a wank stash at work get such a consolation prize

Just read MN Employment section to realise all the non-criminal acts that get ordinary people sacked
without golden handshakes
left in desperate straits of unpaid bills

My sympathy is for Kate Maltby, who has been demonised by Green's supporters, for unwittingly starting off the whole furore that brought him down.
iirc, she was writing after the Weinstein sleaze was exposed and mentioned Green's grope quite casually, as an example of what a working woman in the uk can face.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/23/damian-green-plotted-kate-maltby

Kate Maltby, the Tory activist who made allegations of inappropriate behaviour against Damian Green, believes that his allies orchestrated a ferocious media onslaught in order to discredit her.
…
text messages between Maltby and Green, some apparently edited to suggest she had been pushing for a meeting with the former minister, had ended up in the hands of the media.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/24/kate-maltby-press-war-risks-leveson-revival

Leveson spoke of the great power of the media, both to expose wrongdoing and to deter anyone from speaking out.
With Maltby, papers have done both.
The Timesand its Sunday sister first revealed the allegations, but the Mail and others offered a masterclass in how not to treat ordinary citizens who speak out (even well-connected, affluent ones).

The Mail’s hatchet job, on a journalist who dared to speak out against a politician perhaps favoured by its editor-in-chief,
ends with a killer line from a “Tory source”
suggesting Maltby “might be more careful the next time she’s asked to write a piece trashing a decent man”. < what decent man ? >