Damian Green sacked.

AddicksAddict

Red_in_SE8 said:

AddicksAddict said:

@Red_in_SE8

I refer you to this post of yours: "I am pretty certain that if he was found to be viewing CL or any other football forum on his work computer no one here would have a problem. The fact that people adopt such highminded jihadist religious views on another man's private life is creepy beyond words."

I've just re-read this thread. I didn't see any reference, apart from yours, to Green being called out for watching porn. Everyone who has condemned what he did has mentioned his alleged use of his Government PC, the possibility he's given his ID and password to one or more of his staff, and, most importantly, his lying.

There may be an issue of society at large having a problem with someone watching sexual activity on the internet, for which I think we can thank the gutter press, but that is not present in this thread.

It is judgemental tone I have picked up. Just had a quick review of the thread and see no reason to change my mind on that.

The main issue I have, which seems to be getting lost, is an ex police officer making public confidential private data about a public official that is nobody's business. If the ex police officer thought strongly about a public official watching porn on a work computer then he should have alerted the employer and let the employer deal with it. But even if he did that it would be a gross mis handling of evidence and abuse of power. Of all the misdemeanours committed by various people connected to this case this is the really serious one. If it is allowed to go unpunished then we are on a very dangerous and slippery slope when it comes to one of the fundamental tenets of our civil liberties and one of the things that distinguishes our society from police or religious states.

A member of the Government, effectively the deputy Prime Minister, was lying to the House and the wider world. This was, to me, a far greater abuse of power than the copper pointing this out. Regardless of how he came by the information, I'm glad he did what he did. I guess on this we'll just have to agree to differ.

Stu_of_Kunming

Red_in_SE8 said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Powell Is Pleasant said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Covered End said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

I am pretty certain that if he was found to be viewing CL or any other football forum on his work computer no one here would have a problem. The fact that people adopt such highminded jihadist religious views on another man's private life is creepy beyond words.

It’s wrong and a disciplinary issue to access non work related sites for most employees these days. Certainly was in the NHS. The huge difference is that whilst accessing eg. Charlton Life on a work computer would be deemed as a breach of the policy it wouldn’t really be embarrassing as such other than getting caught. Looking at porn has a lot more significance and I’m willing to bet would be viewed by colleagues in a completely different way to logging on to read the latest musings by Fiiish and Prague.

It was obviously embarrassing enough for Damian Green to flatly deny it when all credible and available evidence points to him as having done so.

I couldn’t give a flying fuck what he does in his personal life. What my finding out that he views porn on his computer whilst at work in his private office and discovering that he registered for a sex contact website and that he acted inappropriately towards the journalist daughter of a family friend does inform my personal opinion of the man.

As humans we do risk assessments of people all the time based on what we know and our perceptions of the person. It’s not creepy to form a view based on that information. It’s human nature.

You say you couldn't give a flying fuck about his personal life but you felt it was ok to comment on the fact that his name was on the Ashton Maddison files? There is a contradiction there surely?

Judging a man on the way he conducts his private sex life and whether or not he watches porn is creepy. Sanctimonious. And sad.

Do you view a lot of porn at work by any chance ?

Why do you want to know? Do you think it is a sin? Do you want to offer up some prayers for me?

Curious as to why you keep making this about religion - literally none of the people you have argued with have made even a passing reference to it, yet you seem determined to argue against it.

People have decided to judge him because he may have viewed porn and he was registered on an adultery website. He lied about the police originally confronting him about the porn on his computer 10 years ago so he had to resign. No arguments there. But there is a puritanical hypocritical condemnation of the man because he may have watched porn (some of it from people I have been in Browns with). So what is the basis of this tone if it is not based on some deep seated religious beliefs that some people are not even aware they have? What is the non religious basis of judging a man engaged in a perfectly legal activity? And I am not talking about the fact he should not have been viewing the porn on a work place computer.

But that's the point, he was viewing porn on a work computer, at what point would the location of the viewing matter to you? On the bus? Sitting in a cafe?

Your point is totally irrelevant. I was answering the question posed by a couple of posters as to why I was banging on about religion when no one explicitly cited religious reasons for judging him for watching legal porn. I am trying to understand what are the non religious reasons to judge a man who chooses to watch legal porn in private?

To address your specific point, I think it is inappropriate for someone to watch porn on a bus or in a cafe or in any public place where it might be inadvertently viewed by an under age person or by a person who, for what ever reason, finds pornagraphic material offensive and has every right to not to be subjected to it in a public place. To watch porn in a public place is rude, uncivil and deserves opprobrium.

Like an office, you mean?

So a private office equates to a public place? You are incredibly dense at times.

If other people work in, or have access to the office, yeah, I'd say it's a public place. Here's a definition I found:

"A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose"

I think government offices certianly fall within that scope.

Red_in_SE8

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Powell Is Pleasant said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Covered End said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

I am pretty certain that if he was found to be viewing CL or any other football forum on his work computer no one here would have a problem. The fact that people adopt such highminded jihadist religious views on another man's private life is creepy beyond words.

It’s wrong and a disciplinary issue to access non work related sites for most employees these days. Certainly was in the NHS. The huge difference is that whilst accessing eg. Charlton Life on a work computer would be deemed as a breach of the policy it wouldn’t really be embarrassing as such other than getting caught. Looking at porn has a lot more significance and I’m willing to bet would be viewed by colleagues in a completely different way to logging on to read the latest musings by Fiiish and Prague.

It was obviously embarrassing enough for Damian Green to flatly deny it when all credible and available evidence points to him as having done so.

I couldn’t give a flying fuck what he does in his personal life. What my finding out that he views porn on his computer whilst at work in his private office and discovering that he registered for a sex contact website and that he acted inappropriately towards the journalist daughter of a family friend does inform my personal opinion of the man.

As humans we do risk assessments of people all the time based on what we know and our perceptions of the person. It’s not creepy to form a view based on that information. It’s human nature.

You say you couldn't give a flying fuck about his personal life but you felt it was ok to comment on the fact that his name was on the Ashton Maddison files? There is a contradiction there surely?

Judging a man on the way he conducts his private sex life and whether or not he watches porn is creepy. Sanctimonious. And sad.

Do you view a lot of porn at work by any chance ?

Why do you want to know? Do you think it is a sin? Do you want to offer up some prayers for me?

Curious as to why you keep making this about religion - literally none of the people you have argued with have made even a passing reference to it, yet you seem determined to argue against it.

People have decided to judge him because he may have viewed porn and he was registered on an adultery website. He lied about the police originally confronting him about the porn on his computer 10 years ago so he had to resign. No arguments there. But there is a puritanical hypocritical condemnation of the man because he may have watched porn (some of it from people I have been in Browns with). So what is the basis of this tone if it is not based on some deep seated religious beliefs that some people are not even aware they have? What is the non religious basis of judging a man engaged in a perfectly legal activity? And I am not talking about the fact he should not have been viewing the porn on a work place computer.

But that's the point, he was viewing porn on a work computer, at what point would the location of the viewing matter to you? On the bus? Sitting in a cafe?

Your point is totally irrelevant. I was answering the question posed by a couple of posters as to why I was banging on about religion when no one explicitly cited religious reasons for judging him for watching legal porn. I am trying to understand what are the non religious reasons to judge a man who chooses to watch legal porn in private?

To address your specific point, I think it is inappropriate for someone to watch porn on a bus or in a cafe or in any public place where it might be inadvertently viewed by an under age person or by a person who, for what ever reason, finds pornagraphic material offensive and has every right to not to be subjected to it in a public place. To watch porn in a public place is rude, uncivil and deserves opprobrium.

Like an office, you mean?

So a private office equates to a public place? You are incredibly dense at times.

If other people work in, or have access to the office, yeah, I'd say it's a public place. Here's a definition I found:

"A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose"

I think government offices certianly fall within that scope.

I think we can safely assume that if he was viewing porn in his office he only did so at times when he was reasonably confident that a fellow worker or a member of the public were unlikely to unexpectedly gain viewing access to his pc.

Stu_of_Kunming

I don't think we can assume anything, especially when talking about someone with such an odd moral compass.

man_at_milletts

This whole issue begs questions about the IT security in Government departments.

mcgrandall

Red_in_SE8 said:

AddicksAddict said:

@Red_in_SE8

I refer you to this post of yours: "I am pretty certain that if he was found to be viewing CL or any other football forum on his work computer no one here would have a problem. The fact that people adopt such highminded jihadist religious views on another man's private life is creepy beyond words."

I've just re-read this thread. I didn't see any reference, apart from yours, to Green being called out for watching porn. Everyone who has condemned what he did has mentioned his alleged use of his Government PC, the possibility he's given his ID and password to one or more of his staff, and, most importantly, his lying.

There may be an issue of society at large having a problem with someone watching sexual activity on the internet, for which I think we can thank the gutter press, but that is not present in this thread.

It is judgemental tone I have picked up. Just had a quick review of the thread and see no reason to change my mind on that.

The main issue I have, which seems to be getting lost, is an ex police officer making public confidential private data about a public official that is nobody's business. If the ex police officer thought strongly about a public official watching porn on a work computer then he should have alerted the employer and let the employer deal with it. But even if he did that it would be a gross mis handling of evidence and abuse of power. Of all the misdemeanours committed by various people connected to this case this is the really serious one. If it is allowed to go unpunished then we are on a very dangerous and slippery slope when it comes to one of the fundamental tenets of our civil liberties and one of the things that distinguishes our society from police or religious states.

But the officer didn't leak anything. The press got hold of his private testimony to the Levison enquiry about the investigation of Damien Green being involved in the leaking of official secret documents to the press.

Many people do think this revelation is in the public interest, unlike the cheap political point scoring that lead to his viewing habits being discovered.