Should Damian Green Be Sacked?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5138751/Theresa-Mays-cabinet-split-future-Damian-Green.html

Or is there a kind of conspiracy against him by certain police officers?

[ichkeria]

I don't think he should be sacked, as there weems to be an element of vindictiveness about this.
He may well have to resign.
It's good news for him that the porn was "legal" , and he may well stick two fingers up at the forces of the law. (I learn however that sticking four fingers up is in fact illegal)
However, the fact that he has done nothing illegal is nothing to do with it. People are sacked all the time for doing things that are not illegal. It's just a question of: since when were the police the Government's HR department?

[Gromit]

PP,
Suing for libel (and slander) will prevent the allegation being repeated, so the story dies ( until it goes to court).
No one will repeat the claim for fear of also being sued.

It is a standard technique when you have something to defend. And there is the crux.

[jno]

I can't google anything at the moment ... But wasn't Green being accused of some sort of harassment?

If so his chums are doing a neat job trying to deflect the whole thing on to the Met.

[BAKERS DOZEN]

Does Mr Green's secretary not keep a diary of his meetings and movements and if so could this not be matched up to the computer usage. One report I read said that the computer was used for hours at a time. I would think they were probably the times that he was out of the office. Still a bit lax if someone else had access to his password though.

[andy-hughes]

BD - I cannot for onw minute think that Mr Green would consider that exposure to his security gaffe in sharing his password - which is the only way his computer could be accessed - would be worse than the accusations he is facing.

Given the choice, I can't see him taking the fall for a staff member by absorbing the accusations himself.

The aparent absence of anything approaching a defence, or even an explanation, does seem to point to a tacit admission of guilt on his part.

[anneasquith]

Are we to assume that Mr. Greens staff didn't have their own computers ?

[Gromit]

Jno,
Green was accused of inappropriate Behaviour by a Conservative activist called Kate Maltby.
It was that allegation which prompted the newspapers to resurrected the porn story from 2009 (which Green has never challenged in Court).

[zebo]

Should everyone using their work computer and time for non-work related activities be sacked? How many have never, honestly, used their work facilities for something other than work? Looking at porn is not illegal, it may be distasteful, but it's not illegal.

[Peter Pedant]

// Suing for libel (and slander) will prevent the allegation being repeated, so the story dies ( until it goes to court). // grom grom

you have fundamentally misunderstood the function of law as it is in this country in 2017

[Peter Pedant]

// The apparent absence of anything approaching a defence...does seem to point to a tacit admission of guilt on his part. //

eek ! admission of what ? he is not suspected of a criminal charge. He was looking at legal porn - whatever that is. or someone

The principle here - and it is important - is that EVEN if there is no defence - the other side - the alleger/accuser has to prove its case. ( woolmington v DPP )
There are no circs where a case is so strong that a defence has to disprove it

[Gromit]

PP,
// you have fundamentally misunderstood the function of law as it is in this country in 2017 //

Would you care to elaborate. Libel (written calumnies), and Slander ( oral calumnies), are easily served, and the result is alnost instantaneous suppression of unconfortable information.
I am perplexed why he has not taken this eay remedy, perhaps you can enlighten me PP.