-
• #10327
I reckon he did it.
-
• #10328
In a lot of workplaces downloading/watching p0rn = instant dismissal.
Now if it's not part of the Parliament workplace rules they can't really fire him over it, and while I find it rather sleazy to do that at work, you could argue there's no case to answer then.
Bar "why the heck is this acceptable in parliament" and "do you people not have ultra strict logging/firewall rules in place, cos it's not that security has to be ultra high". But hei ho.
-
• #10329
he could always try the Townshend defence.
-
• #10330
well ok... but still on the company dime.
-
• #10331
Issues seem to be that they don't actually appear to have produced any physical evidence yet (not really sure why this is the case) and it is unclear whether this is his or someone else in his office's machine.
Tales are that the story was touted to the press a couple of years ago but no-one was too interested in those days.
-
• #10332
Whether or not there's a rule against it, it's a difficult one to argue that he was busy representing his constituents interests whilst working in the House.
He'll have to go I'd have thought. If they try to style it out, they run the risk of the nature of the evidence being leaked. If they insist it's a fix up, are they really going to accuse the Police of planting evidence in the HoP?
-
• #10333
tho it is somewhat worrying that what should be an HR issue is somehow a police issue.
-
• #10334
just throwing his weight around for a mate?
That's what I thought, except he's looking for an out and this could be a good "principled" way of spinning it.
I read it as the police found it during an investigation into something else, therefore its the police doing the outing on this. They can claim a smear, but less time smearing it at work and he'd not have a problem. The dirty wankbeast.
-
• #10335
Both officers are retired. Think it is an attempt to embarrass him by ex coppers as opposed to a police matter.
Everyones a wanker.
-
• #10336
Everyones a wanker.
Most of us don't do it at work though.
-
• #10337
Everyones a wanker
It's just that most of us(not me obviously!) reach for our iphone rather than a work laptop
-
• #10338
I don't at all obvs
-
• #10339
2008 - was the smartphone a common thing back then for MPs?
-
• #10340
True.
-
• #10341
I was working in government IT in 2008 and all senior staff had smartphones at the time.
-
• #10342
Wankers.
-
• #10343
Did they? So it seems like Green was just careless with the knuckle children access portal then.
-
• #10344
True, but if you want to fire somebody for slacking off, he probably won't be the only one.
It would be a bit unfair to only focus on him then because they can. So, it all depends on what evidence there is, and if it's a shared computer etc.
If it's not a shared computer AND it could only have been him AND that's an awful lot of spending time on it...well, in that period of time he was a lazy git and perhaps he can't be trusted with t'internet and should go on some sorta course and hand in his personal phone, with everything on the work phone/computers nicely locked down :)
-
• #10345
Wasn't the statement something like "his computer, his account, his login, he sent emails between browsing gumble. Its him"
-
• #10346
Just read on Twitter that Irish get to sign off on moving negotiations forward.
Today's been a big news day.
-
• #10347
And here is a lovely response to the news: https://twitter.com/godfreydavey/status/936645920460017664?s=17
-
• #10348
he sounds nice.
-
• #10349
In that case, he has no excuse, but if reading the article again, he seems to not have broken any laws by browsing grumble in parliament, so it's a bit strange for the police to get involved this way.
-
• #10350
Misconduct in Public Office is a criminal matter, no?
Bob Quick prob has on pendrive