Tag Archives: offer

Latest DWP outrage: cold calls with ‘take it or leave it’ offer for reduced benefits

If this is true, it seems there’s no depth to which the Department for Work and Pensions won’t lower itself.

The claims is that DWP representatives are ‘cold calling’ vulnerable people who are appealing against a decision to deny them any benefits.

In the unrecorded calls, they are then offered “take it or leave it” deals paying thousands of pounds less in benefits than they may be entitled to have by law.

In some cases, it is claimed, people were told the offer would be withdrawn within minutes if they did not accept.

The aim: to settle cases before they get to tribunals where the claimant could win significantly higher payments.

The Guardian report seems to indicate that the DWP has admitted the truth of the matter, saying people accepting the offer could still go through with their appeal.

But that fact is no good if the DWP caller doesn’t actually inform the claimant of it.

It is easy to understand the attractiveness of this brutally mean-spirited practice to the penny-pinchers at the DWP.

Appeals against adverse benefit decisions are currently low in number, mostly because the Tory government has made it extremely costly, time-consuming and stressful.

But a huge 70 per cent of appeals end in victory for the claimant, making this course of action more desirable in spite of the pressure it involves.

DWP officials recently had a £1 million bonus payout for their success in depriving vulnerable people of the money that was theirs by right.

If they want to keep their cash rolling in, they have to find ways to deny it to the likes of you and I.

Source: DWP accused of offering disabled people ‘take it or leave it’ benefits | Benefits | The Guardian

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Nigel Farage admits he was offered a peerage 48 hours before Brexit U-turn

Nigel Farage: You know the saying – everything before the ‘but’ is meaningless.

This is revealing:

Nigel Farage claimed he was offered a peerage 48 hours before blinking first in his Brexit stand off with Boris Johnson.

The Brexit Party chief was forced to scrap plans to stand candidates in hundreds of seats amid mounting warnings he risked scuppering EU withdrawal.

He claimed he was offered a peerage on Friday night – just two days before his screeching U-turn boosted the Prime Minister.

Mr Farage says it had no effect on his decision:

But he denied the Christmas bauble was behind his decision – and vowed to snub the offer.

But is he protesting too much?

Source: General election: Nigel Farage admits he was offered a peerage 48 hours before Brexit U-turn – Mirror Online

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Theresa May and the Tory cabinet has hatched a new plan – to blame Labour for Brexit woes

Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May: He knew her previous offers of cross-party talks were false; under what conditions will he accept new talks now?

An extraordinarily lengthy cabinet meeting saw Conservatives spending seven hours hatching a plan to spend the next few weeks… finding a way to blame Labour for any continued deadlock.

That is the meaning behind the announcement that Theresa May will – at last – seek talks with Jeremy Corbyn on a way to break the “logjam”, as she has described the Parliamentary impasse over the manner in which the UK is to leave the European Union.

She has painted herself into a corner by agreeing a unilateral deal with the EU, based on the “red lines” regarding immigration and other matters that she imposed arbitrarily – and then failing to win support for it, even among members of her own party.

She had spurned offers of talks from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in the past. It seems clear that the only reason she is turning to him now is desperation – having put the entire country in an untenable position, she wants sham talks with Labour in order to set up the Opposition party as a scapegoat.

We already know she does not intend to vary or erase her “red lines”, which suggests a certain bad faith on her part before starting.

Politics academic Luke Cooper has said it should be easy to reach a deal, as the main difference between her plan and that of Mr Corbyn is semantic – they both want a customs union of some kind with the EU; they just call it different things.

But he tweeted that there is no support for it in the Conservative Party or among the cabinet that would have to pass the legislation that would make it possible.

This is borne out by the resignation of Nigel Adams as a Wales Office minister – exactly because he fears the UK would end up in a permanent customs union with the EU.

In addition, a Tory-Labour deal kills off the prospect of an early general election, which is Labour’s principal policy objective. Party members and voters would deplore what they would see as collusion with the Tories.

What’s more, Mrs May has said she won’t change the Withdrawal Agreement, so it’s only the Future Relationship declaration that is up for change, and those changes are not legally binding. Mrs May has said she’ll resign after getting this part of Brexit through Parliament and she’ll most likely be replaced by a Brexiteer who would not honour changes made to mollify Labour.

Mrs May has agreed to be bound by the decision of the House of Commons, and is demanding that Labour be bound by it too. But she can’t tie the hands of a future leader, and Jeremy Corbyn knows that.

Arch-remainer Andrew Adonis reckons the May offer is another trick:

It’s true that she wants a deal with Labour in order to make it possible for the UK to leave the EU on May 22 – without having to participate in EU elections. It does make another ultimatum possible – and she likes this kind of brinkwomanship, even though it hasn’t helped her at all.

Jim Pickard, political editor of the Financial Times, has said shadow cabinet members don’t believe Mrs May’s offer is genuine:

Other Labour MPs know the score too:

Even the Conservative government’s partners, the DUP, have expressed scepticism. Here’s that party’s statement:

“It remains to be seen if sub-contracting out the future of Brexit to Jeremy Corbyn, someone whom the Conservatives have demonised for four years, will end happily.” Indeed.

And the DUP is dead-set against any form of customs union because that party considers such an arrangement to be bringing the re-integration of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland closer. That’s one reason Mrs May is having to reach out to Labour now.

Here’s National Union of Students vice-president Ali Milani:

Here’s tax justice campaigner Richard Murphy:

And the general public know the score too:

As a politician, Jeremy Corbyn’s course is clear. He cannot reject Mrs May’s offer outright, because that would certainly bring down the wrath of the Conservative-supporting mass media on him.

So he must take the initiative away from her. She is demanding talks with him on her terms, and her terms alone. That is not acceptable. Mr Corbyn needs to announce a few terms of his own.

If Mrs May cannot accept them, then responsibility for the mess she has made of Brexit remains on her shoulders – where it belongs.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

The Conservatives have painted themselves into a corner; this simple question reveals their stupidity


Can you believe that Tory rebels have been asked if Theresa May’s resignation would motivate them to support her Brexit deal.

Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan Smith, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others were asked for their opinions in private sessions with Downing Street advisors at a meeting in Chequers over the weekend, it has been alleged.

One has to ask the simple question: Why?

Mrs May’s deal was voted down twice – firstly in the biggest defeat for a sitting government in history, and secondly in the fourth-biggest such defeat – not because it was hers, but because it was bad for the United Kingdom.

Her departure from 10 Downing Street would not make her deal any less dreadful.

Rejecting this offer would show consistency – the MPs concerned don’t like the deal and if Mrs May’s insistence on pursuing it leads to her downfall, that is her problem.

If they decided to accept the offer and support the deal, it would send a resounding message out to the country that these MPs don’t care about the well-being of the UK’s people, but only for their own careers.

Whatever happened, the mere asking of the question shows that the Conservatives still consider Brexit to be an internal party squabble.

It’s yet another misstep in a premiership full of them. How many more times will Theresa May stumble before she finally falls?


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

May allows ‘indicative votes’ on how Brexit should proceed – if she can’t get her deal passed. But will she listen?

It looks like a nod to democracy. But is it?

Before she won the right to continue dictating the UK’s course on Brexit – by just two votes! – Theresa May made a concession to Parliament by agreeing to allow “indicative votes” on how to proceed, giving some control of the parliamentary timetable to MPs and allowing them to vote on a range of Brexit solutions.

Cabinet Office minister David Lidington, who deputises for Mrs May, said MPs could have a say in forging a new plan if hers could not be agreed by Parliament. We now know that her plan will go before Parliament yet again before the European Council summit on March 21; if it is approved, then the government will seek a brief, technical extension beyond the current March 29 departure date to get the necessary legislation in place.

If it is not, then the government will be seeking a longer extension – to June 30 – and it seems likely that indicative votes on the kind of Brexit to be negotiated will be held then.

But we have had assurances from Theresa May before – and they have come to nothing.

She tends to forget her promises as soon as she gets what she wants.

As always, this is an opportunity for the general public to judge Mrs May’s government.

As usual, it would be wise not to expect people to draw the obvious conclusions.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Brexit: ‘Make me an offer’ says May – but nobody wants to talk with her

This is how we should all treat Theresa May.

Theresa May’s week has not started in a very intelligent way, has it?

Not only is she facing rebellion from all sides at home, thanks to her hopeless mismanagement of her own party, as described in This Site’s earlier article

Not only has a report shown that the UK will be worse off after Brexit, no matter what we do with it…

The government’s new analysis of the impact of Brexit says the UK would be worse off outside the European Union under every scenario modelled.

The assessment, which is titled “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing” and dated January 2018, looked at three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios based on existing EU arrangements.

Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis.

The “no deal” scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%.

These calculations do not take into account any short-term hits to the economy from Brexit, such as the cost of adjusting the economy to new customs arrangements.

Not only did the EU take just two minutes deciding what it was going to offer the UK in the next round of Brexit negotiations…

The European Union’s 27 remaining countries have formally agreed on the terms they will offer Britain for its Brexit transition period.

The negotiating guidelines were agreed by the member states after only a two minute discussion, the European Commission’s deputy chief negotiator Sabine Weyand said on Monday afternoon.

The decision was made at a meeting of the EU’s general affairs council in Brussels, which the UK did not attend – as is convention for decisions regarding Brexit.

Not only did Angela Merkel expose Mrs May to ridicule over her negotiating technique (what negotiating technique?)…

Angela Merkel reportedly left journalists “laughing uproariously” after mocking Theresa May‘s attempts to negotiate a trading relationship post-Brexit.

The German chancellor said she had been trapped in a recurring conversation with the British Prime Minister since the EU referendum in 2016.

Speaking to a “secret” press meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Ms Merkel claimed Ms May had repeatedly asked her to “make me an offer”, according to a report by ITV political pundit Robert Peston.

Ms Merkel said that when she replied “but you’re leaving – we don’t have to make you an offer. Come on what do you want?”, Ms May replied again, “Make me an offer.”

“And so, according to Mrs Merkel, the two find themselves trapped in a recurring loop of ‘what do you want?’ and ‘make me an offer’,” Mr Peston wrote on his Facebook page.

But it turns out Gibraltar can veto any final deal!

The chief minister of Gibraltar has said he is ready to veto parts of the Brexit deal agreed by Theresa May if it does not work in the territory’s favour.

Speaking exclusively to The Independent, Fabian Picardo said he would not accept anything in the deal that was detrimental to Gibraltar’s business or social care systems.

Mr Picardo, who presides over a region that delivered the highest Remain vote – 96 per cent – of anywhere in the EU referendum, also called for a second vote on the final terms of any Brexit agreement.

Of course he wants a second vote. He knows Brexit is insanity – and so do we, after the report mentioned above.

But Tories don’t want to allow it because refusal would ruin their plans to take away what’s left of our rights and property.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Nadine Dorries reveals shocking breaches of data security as Damian Green porn saga thickens

There’s a reason we call her ‘Mad Nad’, folks.

Yes, Mid Bedfordshire Tory MP Nadine Dorries has leapt to the defence of Damian Green, by triggering a data protection controversy that could engulf any number of MPs and their office staff as well.

The allegation – as we all know by now, right? – is that First Secretary of State Damian Green, the man in the second-highest political job in the land, who stands accused of inappropriate behaviour towards a lady called Kate Maltby, was found to have been misusing Parliamentary computers by using them to watch porn, as long ago as 2008.

Former police officers have been lining up to publicise evidence that a computer in Mr Green’s office was used to access thousands of pornographic images, saying he must have been the culprit as he was logged in when the images were viewed.

But Ms Dorries leapt into the fray on Saturday evening, pointing out:

Oh, really?

We’ll come back to this, but first, we need to remember that Mr Green has denied viewing porn on the computer in question – to Parliament. If he did, then he knowingly lied to Parliament – an offence that, if proved, should mean his political career is over.

Could it have been someone else in his office team, then? Well…

That’ll be a ‘no’, then. But let’s remember that, in most offices, being the person logged into a computer when it accessed pornography would be an offence for which the punishment would be the sack.

Okay – back to Ms Dorries and her allegation that other people log in to Westminster computers, using MPs’ details “everyday”.

If she’s right, then she has confessed to a major breach of the Data Protection Act – and went on to implicate “all staff”, opening a can of worms that should be disgorging its contents for a considerable amount of time:

Some of us wanted the Information Commissioner to investigate this allegation of serious and widespread data protection abuses:

https://twitter.com/Wirral_In_It/status/937306421577895936

Others pointed out that most organisations consider it an open-and-shut case that, if a computer is found to have accessed pornography while a particular user was logged in, then that user must be responsible for viewing it and must accept the consequences.

Ms Dorries took issue with this (she is ‘Mad Nad’, after all) – and let herself in for a serial slapdown that bordered on dogpiling.

Apparently Tory MPs like Ms Dorries and Mr Green believe they operate above the law. Interesting, that…

Here comes another useful snippet: Nobody in any MP’s office needs their boss’s full login details to handle emails, as Ms Dorries had claimed. See John O’Shea’s tweet below:

Ah,  but perhaps Parliament doesn’t consider porn viewing during working hours to be as serious a matter as elsewhere? The following suggests not:

Now, some commenters have pointed out that the DWP is just one government department, and the guidelines don’t date back to 2008. Fair enough. But it seems unreasonable to suggest the DWP’s guidelines wouldn’t at least be based on guidelines for all government departments – and it also seems unreasonable to expect those guidelines to have been introduced after computers and the internet were first installed in Parliament/government offices.

What do these revelations mean in the short term? Here are Luke Parks (telling us what the officials will be demanding) and Mark Keogan (explaining that it won’t make a scrap of difference, if Ms Dorries’ claims are accurate):

Meanwhile, other commenters have taken issue with media coverage suggesting that the former police officers brought forward evidence against Mr Green vindictively. Coverage, notably by the BBC, has included interviews with people who suggested that police are disgruntled with the Conservative Party for changes to their pay and conditions that have made it much harder to do their job.

Members of the public disagree vocally:

While the pornography found on the computer wasn’t illegal, and it isn’t illegal to view pornography on an office computer (simply sackable according to the rules of individual organisations, for what should be obvious reasons), Ms Rowe (above) makes the very good point that it’s possible the evidence would have disappeared if the ex-officers in question had gone through official channels. And if he did watch the porn, let’s remember that Mr Green would be guilty of lying to Parliament, and of an offence that would result in the sacking of any office worker. Why should he be exempt from the same treatment?

https://twitter.com/Panopticon6/status/937026997955506176

Yes he is – whether guilty of any of the transgressions alleged about him or not.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Desperate Tories line up to protect Damian Green as damning evidence emerges over porn claims

[Image: Twitter.]


An uncharitable person might claim that a ‘circle of jerks’ had formed to defend the use of Parliamentary computer sysems for auto-eroticism.

The revelation that David Davis has offered to resign as Brexit Secretary if Damian Green loses his job has prompted comments that he should have picked a more appropriate excuse to put down that poisoned chalice.

Mr Davis made what he intended to be a threat – but we should take as an offer – after former detective Neil Lewis, who examined Mr Green’s computers as part of Operation Miser (an investigation into the leak of politically-sensitive material from Parliament), provided evidence that the pornography found there could only have been accessed by the now-First Secretary of State.

A friend of Mr Davies said: “David has made it clear that he will not stand idly by if as a result of wrong behaviour by the police then Damian is forced out. The police are using tactics straight out of the mafia playbook.”

Former attorney general Dominic Grieve said the actions of the retired officers in leaking the allegations against Green had “the smack of the police state”, telling the BBC’s Newsnight: “This can’t be right. They are in flagrant breach of their own code of conduct and practice.”

Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins delivered a rambling attack on the former police officers who have accused Mr Green. He told the BBC’s The World Tonight: “People are making accusations against [Damian Green] who clearly have a vested interest in trying to justify what they originally did, which was an outrageous invasion of Parliamentary privilege.

“Are policemen going to pursue politicians into every newsagents to see what magazines they pick up?

“My understanding is they were told to destroy this material when the original raid was considered defunct. He didn’t destroy it; he held onto it for nine years, and now it comes out – very suspiciously.

“The original investigation was very odd. It was instigated by the Home Office into a leak of politically embarrassing material.

“The whole thing stinks to me, but the hysteria surrounding it is now out of all proportion.

“I’m sure lots of people in their office ours look at things on computers which they shouldn’t be looking at on computers. Whether it’s a sackable offence for a deputy prime minister… We don’t know he did it, for goodness’ sake – he’s denied it, he’s not allowed a court of law on this, it’s perfectly possible to hack into other people’s computers and use their destinations, it could be someone else using his computer; we just don’t know.”

But Stephen Roberts, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, told the same programme: “Police officers take an oath of duty to the Crown to serve the public good, and there are occasions when that duty outweighs the normal conventions.”

And Mr Lewis himself said: “The computer was in Mr Green’s office, on his desk, logged in, his account, his name.

“In between browsing pornography, he was sending emails from his account, his personal account, reading documents … it was ridiculous to suggest anybody else could have done it.”

He said: “When I left the police I kept one notebook and that was the notebook for Operation Miser, because that was the case that I was uncomfortable with.”

Lewis said he was motivated to come forward when he read about Mr Green’s denial of claims by Bob Quick, a former Metropolitan assistant commissioner, who told the Sunday Times that pornography had been found on the politician’s computer.

“His outright denial of that was quite amazing, followed by his criticism of Bob Quick,” Lewis said. “I contacted Bob Quick to offer my support.”

Asked if it was possible for anyone else to access Green’s machine, Lewis said: “It was so extensive, whoever had done it would have had to push Mr Green to one side to say ‘Get out, I’m using your computer’.”

A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police has said Mr Lewis should not have made his information public and an investigation was taking place, but This Writer finds himself in rare agreement with Labour’s Jess Phillips, who said: “Both people can be in the wrong and there still has to be a case to answer.

“If what is being said, which I hope is being submitted to the proper investigation, is believed to be true on the balance of probabilities, then yes it does change things and Damian Green cannot stay in his position.

“The pressure is mounting on him. There is no illegality but would you be fired if you looked at pornography on your work computer? The problem for me in all of this is how people use their power to not live by the same rules that everybody else has to.”

The evidence seems clear: Pornography was found on a computer in Mr Green’s office, and the browsing history certainly suggests that it was accessed by Mr Green himself. His denial seems false – and if that is found to be false, it is a sacking offence for a Minister of the Crown. More generally, any other office worker who is found to have material of this kind on their computer would be sacked out of hand.

Members of the public seem to have made up their own minds:

This Writer’s concern is: If Mr Lewis had taken his evidence through the proper channels, would we ever have been allowed to know it existed?


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Torygraph Launches Scathing Attack On Commons Standards Commissioner After Rifkind/Straw Ruling

Painful though it is to agree with the Torygraph, the paper is absolutely right to go for Kathryn Hudson’s jugular in its editorial about her ruling on the Rifkind/Straw cases.

It seems that, rather than investigating MPs and uncovering wrongdoing, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is more interested in defending them against any investigation or criticism.

Where the Telegraph editorial questions whether she is fit to hold her post, This Writer would question whether that post should be dissolved altogether and potential wrongdoing by MPs referred to the police – preferably to be investigated by a force not directly connected to the Member in question or Parliament itself.

In her ruling, Kathryn Hudson, criticised the journalists who broke the story, commenting: “The distorted coverage of the actions and words of the Members concerned has itself been the main cause of the damage.

“If in their coverage of this story, the reporters for Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph had accurately reported what was said by the two Members in their interviews, and measured their words against the rules of the House, it would have been possible to avoid the damage that has been done to the lives of two individuals.”

But the Telegraph retorted with its own scathing editorial this week, saying the “sorry tale” of both ex-MPs proved “beyond doubt” that those in the Commons could not be trusted to regulate themselves over lobbying.

“Ms Hudson’s credulity towards MPs raises questions about whether she is fit to hold her post,” leader writers wrote, “yet her performance is laudable in comparison with the egregious work of the Standards Committee.

“Far from accepting any error by Sir Malcolm or Mr Straw, or any flaw in the rules they so nimbly stepped around, the committee suggests that the failing here lies with the public for not properly “understanding” the role of MPs.

It continued, saying: “That is bad enough. Worse are the committee’s words on the press. It is only because of investigative journalism that the conduct of Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw became known to the voters they were supposed to serve.

“Yet the committee’s report amounts to a warning to journalists not to carry out such investigations in future, promising to ‘consider further the role of the press in furthering…understanding and detecting wrongdoing’.”

Source: Daily Telegraph Launches Scathing Attack On Commons Standard Commissioner After Rifkind/Straw Ruling

Rifkind and Straw didn’t break lobbying rules – it seems they only offered

Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Not the only Tory suspected of wrong-doing.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Not the only Tory suspected of wrong-doing.

Parliament’s standards commissioner, Kathryn Hudson, has let former MPs Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw off the hook after they were accused of corruption – but is this because they only offered to break the rules, rather than actually breaking them?

Rifkind and Straw were filmed secretly by Channel 4’s Dispatches documentary programme, speaking with an undercover reporter posing as a representative of a fake Hong Kong firm, ‘PMR’.

This representative asked Sir Malcolm if he would be able to provide advance information on HS3 – the mooted high-speed train route linking the northeast of England with the northwest.

He was recorded saying: “I could write to a minister… And I wouldn’t name who was asking… But I would say I’ve been asked to establish what your thinking is on X, Y, Z. Can you tell me what that is?”

Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said on the programme: “It’s absolutely clear in the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament that they have to be open and frank in all communications and yet he was saying on that clip that he would be able to write to ministers, and he wouldn’t have to say who exactly he was representing.

“Well that would be a clear breach of the Code of Conduct and an example of, here, an experienced Member of Parliament rather using their privileged position as a public servant in trying to get access to information which would benefit individuals and this company in a way that I think the public would find totally unacceptable.”

But of course, he didn’t actually do it, because PMR was a fictitious company.

Jack Straw was filmed telling an undercover reporter how he managed to get Ukrainian law changed in order to allow another company to run its business more easily there – a perfectly legal and reasonable activity, according to Dispatches.

But then he said that EU regulations had been hampering the business so he “got in to see the relevant director general and his officials in Brussels” and got the regulations changed. He said: “The best way of doing things is under the radar.”

Sir Alistair Graham pointed out, on the programme: “That’s worrying because that’s saying ‘I can do these things without transparency’ – without the
openness and frankness that the MPs’ Code of Conduct is expecting is the normal behaviour from Members of Parliament.”

But, again, he didn’t actually do anything “under the radar” because PMR was a fictitious company.

So Ms Hudson cleared both former MPs of any wrong-doing – and gave both Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph (with whom the programme had run its investigation as a joint affair) a lashing.

“If in their coverage of this story, the reporters for Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph had accurately reported what was said by the two members in their interviews, and measured their words against the rules of the House, it would have been possible to avoid the damage that has been done to the lives of two individuals and those around them, and to the reputation of the House.”

This seems unreasonable as Dispatches actually filmed both these people making their claims, and measured them against the words of Sir Alistair Graham – and there was plenty of qualification in the voice-over, explaining what was permitted by the rules and what was not.

What was she really saying? That Rifkind and Straw had to carry out their suggestions before they could be accused of anything? Wouldn’t that be leaving things a little late? Fixing the barn door after the horse has bolted, to quote a well-known phrase?

Remember, this is the standards commissioner who was reluctant to examine the case of George Osborne, who paid mortgage interest on his paddock with taxpayers’ money before selling it off with a neighbouring farmhouse for around £1 million and pocketing the cash.

She refused to look into it, saying she had already investigated the case – but an examination of her report revealed no mention of the million-pound paddock at all.

Prime Minister David Cameron was said to have welcomed the commissioner’s whitewash, in a BBC report.

But Channel 4 is standing by its story and has asked broadcasting watchdog Ofcom to investigate the programme. Channel 4 says the programme raised legitimate questions and, in all honesty, this is true.

Let’s hope the result of this investigation takes Ms Hudson down a peg or two. She is long overdue for it.

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook