BS: Damian Green

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 12:19 PM

Steve,
Handwritten note, eh, Keith? Do you you know what was in that note? Could've been details of websites visited, even payments made, stuff that could be corroborated, who knows? I don't, and neither do you.

Yes I do. He has produced it in news interviews. There is no detail at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 09:53 AM

These are actual convictions. Recognise the difference jimmy?

https://labour25.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 09:49 AM

"Mindless thugs always try to sout down those they are incapable of matching otherwise "

A perfect description of yourself jimmy.

" I have little doubt that you'd happily include the exponents of child abuse in your defence campaign, should the necessity aries"

You really are a piece of lowlife scum jimmy! I can see why living in a bog appeals to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 08:10 AM

"constantly talk down to you,"
Attempts are no indication of the end result
Mindless thugs always try to sout down those they are incapable of matching otherwise - you must have learned that by now
Jim Caarroll

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 07:46 AM

Incidentally,
When and if Corbyn and the Labour Party are found to be denegrating women by their widespread use and justification of porn, they will get the same condemnation of it as has your boyo
So far, porn to this extent seems largely the domain of the privileged right (a few exceptions, no doubt)
The same of course, with paedophelia - definitely the playground of the boys at the top
You mob make a neat litle porno for the privilege team here; I have little doubt that you'd happily include the exponents of child abuse in your defence campaign, should the necessity aries
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 07:12 AM

"Jimmie as you have transplanted yourself to a bog you have no concept as to what is at stake"
Just the racict and personally abusive response I expected
Pity the BNP took a noesdive and Ukip is on the rocks,
Never mind - there's always Bori and Res Mogg as a stopgap until another fuhrer rises from the ashes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 06:59 AM

"Just imagine the outcry should the tories have instigated a search of comrade corbyn's parliamentary office"

I doubt if they would find stolen files and porn on the computer.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 06:32 AM

Jimmie as you have transplanted yourself to a bog you have no concept as to what is at stake. Your constant drivelling is wearing as is your pathetic attempts to bully all who argue with you.

Try to bear in mind the police are subject to the same rules as the rest of us. The legality of the search of the commons has not been tested in the courts, though instructions issued by the speaker subsequent to this fiasco, indicate a warrant should have been obtained. As a result the admissability of whatever may have been obtained is questionable.

You and many others (of your fellow rats)seem totally unable to appreciate this.

Just imagine the outcry should the tories have instigated a search of
comrade corbyn's parliamentary office.

and by the way jimmy if I am a mental midget and constantly talk down to you, I can only assume you are retarded. After all what ranks lower than a mental midget?

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 06:30 AM

"Somewhat like starting threads about any whiff of any wrongdoing in the Labour Party you mean?"
Ah, but that's only labour Dave - well worth the dozen or so witch-hunts Keith has embarked on - and that's only on this form
God knows how many he gets uop to in his clerical hat -yes, he does claim to be a CHRISTIAN, believe it or not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 06:10 AM

Just a politically motivated witch hunt.

Somewhat like starting threads about any whiff of any wrongdoing in the Labour Party you mean?

It seems clear it is not democracy you are concerned with but scoring cheap political shots.
What a hypocritical fellow you are.


It seems clear that you are not interested in anything at all but scoring cheap political shots. What a hypocritical fellow you are.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 05:51 AM

"If you believe them, the porn was not illegal."
"A CASE OF THIS< I THINK
Still no comment on the damage done from the pro-porn lobby
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 05:46 AM

The thing is Steve we do not know what evidence has been retained. If the police officer was thorough he will have carefully filed and retained any incriminating evidence.

Still wonder why Damien Green hasn't said anything about taking the allegation to court.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 05:31 AM

"Bullied their way," "ransack offices," "witch hunt..." Gosh, the hyperbole count is rising!

Handwritten note, eh, Keith? Do you you know what was in that note? Could've been details of websites visited, even payments made, stuff that could be corroborated, who knows? I don't, and neither do you.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 04:42 AM

400!
And do we know in what form the cop has been holding the evidence?

yes. Just a handwritten note written by himself who knows when. No hard evidence at all

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 04:39 AM

Sounds to me like you admit that the porn existed, if nowt else. If not, well what was it that was not illegal, Keith?

Unlike you I make no assumptions about this.
This is all about unsubstantiated claims, 9 years late, from the ex-cops.

If you believe them, the porn was not illegal.
If you do not believe them, the porn never even existed.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 04:38 AM

"Shaw you are getting very boring."
As is your constant and somewhat pathetic attempt to talk down to people
"The fact the police bullied their way into Parliament to search an mp's office does nor appear to concern you."
That is part of their job description when they suspect offences are being committed - they do it all the time to the rest of us when they see it necessary - why should elected representatives be any different?
Interesting that the argument has shifted from "he didn't do it" to "he probably did but it was legal"
None of you have attempted to address to negative effects porn has on the lives on half of the human race
As long as it's legal, it's ok if our lawmakers and tax-spend do it.
Sheesh - what a lumpen attitude to humanity in general
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Iains
Date: 17 Dec 17 - 04:09 AM

Shaw you are getting very boring.
There are multiple issues at stake over this affair. You deliberately ignore them to pursue a witch hunt.

The fact the police bullied their way into Parliament to search an mp's office does nor appear to concern you.
You overlook the fact that shortly after the event the speaker emphasised that a search warrant is required to ransack offices in Parliament.
When arresting an MP the police are required to write to inform the speaker.
Why did this take 5 days.

For someone continually banging on about the great EU democracy, your being totally oblivious to the implications of the affair, and how it impacts British Democracy astounds me.
It seems clear it is not democracy you are concerned with but scoring cheap political shots.
What a hypocritical fellow you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 06:29 PM

Was the computer scanned then? So what's all this argument about whether the porn actually existed...?

The policeman was of the opinion that the porn was legal, so your "no case to answer" point falls as that was the position all along, and the policeman knew it. The possession of legal porn was never going to be a court matter so I don't see your point. As for holding "evidence" for nine years, I don't see that nine seconds, nine months, nine years or ninety years has any bearing on the legality or not of having that evidence. And do we know in what form the cop has been holding the evidence? Screenshot? Memory stick? Recollection? As far as I know, we haven't been told. And you haven't yet told us what bit of the Data Protection Act has been breached. The police seize private computers looking for evidence all the time. Someone had better tell 'em about that act...

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 05:26 PM

Iains - staying glued to the authorized tory office damage limitation script as if his very existence depended on it...

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 04:15 PM

"So what part of the Data Protection Act relates to someone accidentally viewing porn on someone else's computer?"

Simply a nine year lapse. Also your argument is facile. There was nothing accidental about scanning the alleged computer. If there was a case to answer it would have come to court many years ago. To hold evidence for nine years(assuming he can corroborate his allegations)is clearly a breach of the data protection act.
As has been stated elsewhere had a legitimate request been made about data held by the police concerning these allegations, the response would have been erroneous due to the actions of renegade police officers. If the act is to have any teeth at all it demands these officers be punished. There is not a lot of value in having a data protection act if anyone with a grudge can walk away and sit on data dubiously obtained in order to use it to settle a grudge many years later. Should the grubby, politically motivated, attempted character assassination by a disgraced, failed police officer be rewarded in any way? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 02:57 PM

So what part of the Data Protection Act relates to someone accidentally viewing porn on someone else's computer? Suppose I'm a head of department or the headteacher in a secondary school and I accidentally find porn on a probationary teacher's computer. Am I in breach of the Data Protection Act if I tell anyone about it? I don't think so. I don't think that's the kind of "data" the Act is supposed to cover. And what about all those leaks? Green was in receipt of documents leaked by some mole in the Brown administration. He didn't exactly blow the whistle on the Labour provider, did he? I imagine he found the leaked documents very useful. Was that covered by the Data Protection Act? There's an awful lot of leaking going on and not an awful lot of prosecutions...


"He is also the only person claiming it existed at all.
There is no-one anywhere claiming it was not legal!"

This is what you said on 3 December, Keith, your whole post:

Date: 03 Dec 17 - 06:16 AM

"The ex officers did not report it at the time.
Even they admit they had no proof it was Green anyway.
It was not illegal anyway.
No crime was committed.
It was ten years ago."

Sounds to me like you admit that the porn existed, if nowt else. If not, well what was it that was not illegal, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 01:33 PM

"if those cops had found porn, I am sure they would have acted if it was illegal, and they would know.

Thus even if lying that it existed they could not claim it was illegal or they would have to explain their lack of action."

It's nice to hope our police act independently of Establishment / Tory Govt control and interference...
But.. who knows what [conspiracy theorists alert...!!!!!!!] 'pressures' from 'sideways and / or above'
might have influenced higher ranking police officials to put a stop to these whistleblowers acting 9 years ago...???

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 01:05 PM

Pfr, if those cops had found porn, I am sure they would have acted if it was illegal, and they would know.

Thus even if lying that it existed they could not claim it was illegal or they would have to explain their lack of action.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 12:29 PM

"Do you think the copper would have been right not to disclose at that point what he knew (and which we, as yet, don't know the details of)? Questions, questions!"

No question about it. If dodgy copper substantiates his allegations with any kind of evidence he is in clear breach of the data protection act. He is also in breach of his own code of conduct that extends into retirement.
The police and security services need to keep out of politics.Not only because of this thread, but also:

https://undercoverinfo.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/corbyn-upgraded-to-national-security-risk-first-step-of-a-very-british-coup/

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 11:37 AM

Does the average bloke [or blokette] with an internet connection even know what 'legal porn' for UK citizens is
in this era of slightly less draconian censorship and obscenity legislation...???

Yes.. we all know what the most 'highly illegal' is.. and damn right it should be..

But it's those tricky grey areas of hesitation and uncertainty.....?????

Then there's that sanitized middle class middle-brow 'sensual erotica':
and weird studenty arty farty nudey stuff in Art Gallery Exhibitions...?????

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 11:15 AM

If you think it's illegal you must think he's broken a law. Which law?

How would I know, but I read that the police are considering a prosecution.

If you think that the porn was not illegal, you must be agreeing with the policeman.

No.

He's the only person who's said that the porn was legal.

He is also the only person claiming it existed at all.
There is no-one anywhere claiming it was not legal!

Do you think the copper would have been right not to disclose at that point what he knew (and which we, as yet, don't know the details of)? Questions, questions!

No question. It was wrong. The police chief states that.

Looking at legal porn is something almost everyone has done so it is not relevant to the other allegation at all.
It is not evidence of any kind of criminality.

You are still banging on about nothing.
Just a politically motivated witch hunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 09:34 AM

"I view this affair as the police playing politics"

What.. unlike the traditional tory presumption that the police are the playthings of tory politicians...???

"The police may like the idea of turning themselves into paramilitary bully boys"

What.. unlike their traditional role as the 'paramilitary bully boys' of tory governments...???


errrmmm.. [cough]... miners strike... anti poll tax marches.. etc.. etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 09:34 AM

If you think it's illegal you must think he's broken a law. Which law? If you think that the porn was not illegal, you must be agreeing with the policeman. He's the only person who's said that the porn was legal. You are being somewhat selective sbout the information you accept and reject. As for leaks, the release of information not intended for release, isn't that precisely what the policeman has done? Isn't this argument about what's in the public interest? The policeman released his information, nine years kept private, four days after the sex-pest allegations against Green came out. Do you think the copper would have been right not to disclose at that point what he knew (and which we, as yet, don't know the details of)? Questions, questions!

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 09:12 AM

I am not a lawyer Steve, but I read that a prosecution was being considered for the ex-cops.

Was it OK for Green to receive leaked documents

It is not illegal.

but not OK for the copper to leak his information?

That is illegal.

But if that policeman, properly or improperly, has exposed a sex pest, wouldn't that be mitigation?

He has not exposed a sex pest. If he is telling the truth he has exposed someone doing something perfectly legal that almost everyone has done, so no mitigation.

Questions, questions!

Yes, and no evidence so why are you still banging on about nothing?
It is just a politically motivated witch hunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 09:04 AM

Quote me the law that the policeman broke, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 09:01 AM

Separation isn't the point. Was it OK for Green to receive leaked documents to his political advantage and say nothing, but not OK for the copper to leak his information? Is one more in the public interest than the other? Personally, I regard both as improper behaviour and sod all to do with democracy. But if that policeman, properly or improperly, has exposed a sex pest, wouldn't that be mitigation? Questions, questions!

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 08:57 AM

How do you know he's guilty of keeping records illegally?

If he kept the records himself that was illegal.
If he has just written them, I am not sure what the misdemeanour would be called.

He can't be guilty of illegally keeping records if there were no records to keep.

The records he has produced are only hand written ones, written by him!

He can only be legally adjudicated to have lied if Green sues him.

Legally I suppose yes, but if it is a lie he would still be a liar.

In any case, if he did glean some proof that he decided to hang on to that the porn existed, how is that illegal?

Because it is illegal for police to do that.

Is leaking illegal?

It can be. Leakers have been aquitted because they acted in the public interest.
Receiving leaks is not at all illegal.

How is that any better than a cop noting Green's pornography supply?

That is a value judgement, but it is still illegal for an officer to do that. There is no supporting evidence that the porn existed.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 08:50 AM

"Is it OK when a politician leaks embarrassing stuff but not OK if a cop does it?"

YES!!!!!


The police cannot be allowed to play politics.

The executive, legislative and judicial need to maintain total separation in order for democracy to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 08:46 AM

To sum up your stance in this thread, Keith: "You people have no evidence that the porn existed and it wasn't illegal anyway."

Can you even get your own head round that, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 08:36 AM

How do you know he's guilty of keeping records illegally? A constant insinuation in all this is that the porn didn't even exist at all. He can't be guilty of illegally keeping records if there were no records to keep. He could be guilty of lying, but, as far as I know, he hasn't made his allegations under oath. He can only be legally adjudicated to have lied if Green sues him. In any case, if he did glean some proof that he decided to hang on to that the porn existed, how is that illegal?   Murky waters, innit? Green is known to have been the serial recipient of leaked documents damaging to Labour, which kicked all this off in the first place. His lackey supplier was sacked. Is leaking illegal? How is that any better than a cop noting Green's pornography supply? Is it OK when a politician leaks embarrassing stuff but not OK if a cop does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 08:27 AM

Bwm,
The truth is that 'we' don't know what evidence exists (and that includes you, Professor Feeblemind) - just because it hasn't been put into the public domain doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Why do you people all assume it does exist, some of you even making some up?

You see, Prof., although your feeble mind appears incapable of understanding it, the lack of published evidence is no proof that there exists no evidence at all.

That works both ways. I assume nothing. You people assume things you have no evidence for.

If I am so feebleminded, identify one thing I have said that could be so described.
You people always resort to baseless personal attack when you can not make a case.

Rag,
An allegation has been made against Damien Green. In order for him to lose the case the accuser would have to submit concrete evidence that Green had watched porn on his work computer. If the accuser cannot do that Green would win his case.

The person bringing the case has to provide the proof.
No-one can prove they did not watch porn nine years ago.

Quick has been quoted as considering bringing action against Green.
Unless he can prove what he says, he will not.

Steve,
There's no way I'd have survived as a teacher had porn been found on my school laptop in school.   

You would if it was only claimed to have been found, nine years later, with no evidence.

Green gets a dedicated thread because I started a dedicated thread about him, his case being topical.

There were numerous similar and stronger topical cases, but only Green got a thread.
This is just a politically motivated witch hunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Iains
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 08:05 AM

There are several points to be borne in mind concerning any court case:
1) The legality of the initial search of Green's parliamentary office has not been tested in the courts.
(I suspect there is no wish to explore this fact by legal means and that measures are now in place to prevent a repetition)
2)Evidence obtained illegally may be ruled inadmissible by the court.
3)Potentially the police action could be regarded as gross and deliberate police misconduct.
4)The behaviour of Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson is totally inexplicable unless he is deliberately interfering in politics. He is commenting on events 9 years ago that lead to no charges. At the least he is guilty of being in breach of enduring confidentiality. For this I would take away his pension on account of gross misbehaviour.
5)The initial whistle blower and his backup blabber are both guilty of the same offence and also one of them guilty of keeping records illegally.
The police may like the idea of turning themselves into paramilitary bully boys but they are subject to the same rules as the rest of us.
I view this affair as the police playing politics. For this reason, if no other, they need to be subject to court action. We supposedly live in a democracy, not a police state. The boundaries of acceptable police behaviour require to be crystal clear. That is far from the case at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 07:59 AM

Can we please stop saying "legal" porn? The issue is not whether what he was allegedly viewing was legal or not (and as establishment doubt has even been cast on the very existence of the material, who's deciding whether it was legal or not? In agreeing that the porn was legal, you are actually saying that the cop was telling the truth about its existence. Surely if yer cop was peddling totally made-up shit against Green for dark motives he wouldn't have stopped at the halfway house of conceding that it was "legal" - that isn't how you go for the jugular!). The issue is that he was allegedly using porn on his work computer, presumably in work time. At the very least that is cheating his employers. And in many occupations, that is a sacking offence. There's no way I'd have survived as a teacher had porn been found on my school laptop in school.   

We still don't know all the facts. The whistleblowin' cop stated that it was inconceivable that Green had not accessed the porn on the computer. We still don't know his evidence for that assertion.

There's not a lot going on with regard to this saga at present. I suspect that that's exactly how Green wants to keep it. And it's perfectly fair to wonder why that's so.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 07:52 AM

JUDGES VIEWING PORN - all high-up members of the British Establishment adjudicting on whether other high-up members of the British Establishment are guity of something they are apparentply all at.
All very confusing from a layman's point of view!!
Well, not really, in a world where laws are made by the privileged, for the privileged.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 07:21 AM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 06:35 AM
"Possibly he hasn't taken it forward because he would find it very hard to win the case"
An allegation has been made against Damien Green. In order for him to lose the case the accuser would have to submit concrete evidence that Green had watched porn on his work computer. If the accuser cannot do that Green would win his case.
The end of the matter and we can all discuss something else.

In order to be defamation, the claim needs to cause the regard in which the subject is held by others to be lowered. This claim would only succeed if it can be shown that the public (or the jury) believe that someone who views legal porn (if indeed he did) on a works computer is held in lower regard than a politician.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 07:03 AM

"Perfectly true. But the lack of published evidence is no proof that evidence exists either.
Nor does it show that the officers were put under any pressure at all."

Thank you for confirming my point, Nigel, which of course was that there are no publicly-known absolutes in this case, just reported ifs, buts, and maybes. This is what I was trying to demonstrate to our esteeemed and revered (not) Professor, who makes bald statements in absolute terms, despite the fact that 'we' are not in possession of all the evidence', in order to 'win' (which, of course, he doesn't, he just makes himself look sillier).

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 06:41 AM

Lewis Carroll, very dodgy

Dodgson rather than dodgy, surely

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 06:35 AM

"Possibly he hasn't taken it forward because he would find it very hard to win the case"

An allegation has been made against Damien Green. In order for him to lose the case the accuser would have to submit concrete evidence that Green had watched porn on his work computer. If the accuser cannot do that Green would win his case.

The end of the matter and we can all discuss something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 06:23 AM

"but it was legal porn"
Maade legal by an establishment who revels in it..... now there's a coincidence
"These are very poor grounds to sack anyone."
I have never suggested that he should be sacked - I just think the electorate should be aware of the low-life we are electing into office
You are happy to condemn police as being untrustworthy on the word of a suspected sex pest, yet you throw your toys out of the pram in his defence when he is serially accused of being a sex predator
No need to ask which side of the scales of justice you sit on - the great and the good every time
"because he would find it very hard to win the case"
You mean like all those raped women who are waterboarded by expensive lawyers every time they bring a case to court - not to mention the vast majority who nevr do for the same reason?
"(no relation, Jim!), "
You mean he's not really me great grand-dad?
Damn - must call off my legal team and tell them not to bother with the claims to the Dodgson estate!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 06:17 AM

From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 06:10 AM
The truth is that 'we' don't know what evidence exists (and that includes you, Professor Feeblemind) - just because it hasn't been put into the public domain doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And 'we' don't know what pressure has been brought to bear on the officers at the time, and since, to keep the sordid business quiet.
You see, Prof., although your feeble mind appears incapable of understanding it, the lack of published evidence is no proof that there exists no evidence at all.

Perfectly true. But the lack of published evidence is no proof that evidence exists either.
Nor does it show that the officers were put under any pressure at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 06:10 AM

The truth is that 'we' don't know what evidence exists (and that includes you, Professor Feeblemind) - just because it hasn't been put into the public domain doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And 'we' don't know what pressure has been brought to bear on the officers at the time, and since, to keep the sordid business quiet.

You see, Prof., although your feeble mind appears incapable of understanding it, the lack of published evidence is no proof that there exists no evidence at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 05:00 AM

I think that both the previous posts make good points. And there's no doubt that, for now at least, the furore has died down, which suits him down to the ground. I'm just thinking of the rage I'd feel if vexatious allegations completely without substance were made against me. I'm certain that I wouldn't be showing the "restraint" that he's showing. That in itself doesn't prove a thing. Unfortunately for him, we have only his word that the charges are without substance, and the current ethos is not in his favour. He's scared of mud sticking. But it's amazing how discredited politicians bounce back after a year or two. There are expenses cheats who are now in positions of power who were bloody lucky not to have been thrown in jail.

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 04:10 AM

Are there other witnesses to the porn that have kept their counsel. But they would be scoring political currency and await payback.
And true, the first thing a lawyer would say to him is "how much can you afford to loose"? Forming an unbiased jury would be difficult too. All male? I don't think so.

The real reason he hasn't gone after them may be that he may be in court in a separate issue and the cost of both cases would weigh heavy. The time he would have to spend on both. His standing would drop further. And his friends would tell him he was a liability. He is, but moreso.

And it is not difficult to paint a scenario where the "officers" feel their career was blighted by saying anything at the time. If you were doing your diligent duty and were told you had exceeded your authority (in an attempt at hush-up) - well, put yourself in their shoes. Mind you, I would have listed a sample of URLs and counted the websites and kept the data!

The world and his brother are making a correlation between the porn and the harassment. It is what humans do, we evolved to see patterns, and it has served us well as a species.
By not going to court, the porn is at least unproven. And the other issue? Who's career is it blighting now? Apart from the Demon Green? Or maybe May?
Let's have a list, who's rushing to his defence?

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Dec 17 - 03:31 AM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 14 Dec 17 - 03:24 PM
I wonder again why Damian Green has not taken this further.
With his resources and the backing of his party he could readily afford to take the Police Officers to court for defamation at least.

Possibly he hasn't taken it forward because he would find it very hard to win the case, and it would give the ex cop a further chance to try to make his questionable comments. "Least said, soonest mended".

Subject: RE: BS: Damian Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 17 - 06:03 PM

Then there's Lewis Carroll, very dodgy (no relation, Jim!), wild man Jerry Lewis, Huey Lewis (he's news to me) and that ugly alpha-male bugger who pretended badly to be a yank, Damian Lewis. OMG, he's called "Damian!" He's doomed! Call in Damien the exorcist!