Police Duty of Confidentiality

[StuartO]

It seems clear to me that the duty of confidentiality owed by policemen should continue to apply beyond their retirement - and so therefore should their accountability for it and perhaps also the risk to their pension if they transgress.  The police exercise powers of search which invade privacy and, apart from giving evidence to a court for purposes of prosecution, they should keep quiet about what they find.  It's a lifelong obligation and it's no different from a doctor's obligation to keep quiet about who he's treated for venereal disease.

 

It is not for a policeman to decide when it is in the public interest to break that confidence; there are avenues of representation he might properly use if he thinks someone is getting away with something he shouldn't but reporting through those channels is as far as his freedom to disclose goes.  The rule for doctors is that they can only reveal information if ordered to do so by a court and so it should be with policemen.

 

So the retired Assistant Commissioner who spilled the beans about the Cabinet Minister should be held to account and pay the price; likewise the retired policeman who endorsed his story.  They have both broken the rules.

 

As far as the Politician who was named to shame, it will be a matter of whether there is convincing evidence of breaking some rules or the law.  It might also be that he will suffer anyway because public confidence in him might be broken, such is the risk which all those who live in the public eye face.  If the information which the policemen revealed was not true (or cannot be shown to be true) then the Politician could sue for defamation and recover damages if he wishes.  The policemen who spilled the beans but lack evidence to prove their story could therefore suffer additional penalities.

 

Anybody want to argue with that interpretation?

 

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2017-12-03 10:09 AMIt seems clear to me that the duty of confidentiality owed by policemen should continue to apply beyond their retirement - and so therefore should their accountability for it and perhaps also the risk to their pension if they transgress.  The police exercise powers of search which invade privacy and, apart from giving evidence to a court for purposes of prosecution, they should keep quiet about what they find.  It's a lifelong obligation and it's no different from a doctor's obligation to keep quiet about who he's treated for venereal disease.

 

It is not for a policeman to decide when it is in the public interest to break that confidence; there are avenues of representation he might properly use if he thinks someone is getting away with something he shouldn't but reporting through those channels is as far as his freedom to disclose goes.  The rule for doctors is that they can only reveal information if ordered to do so by a court and so it should be with policemen.

 

So the retired Assistant Commissioner who spilled the beans about the Cabinet Minister should be held to account and pay the price; likewise the retired policeman who endorsed his story.  They have both broken the rules.

 

As far as the Politician who was named to shame, it will be a matter of whether there is convincing evidence of breaking some rules or the law.  It might also be that he will suffer anyway because public confidence in him might be broken, such is the risk which all those who live in the public eye face.  If the information which the policemen revealed was not true (or cannot be shown to be true) then the Politician could sue for defamation and recover damages if he wishes.  The policemen who spilled the beans but lack evidence to prove their story could therefore suffer additional penalities.

 

Anybody want to argue with that interpretation?

I agree with you Stuart. I expect the government will try to introduce provisions in the police pension arrangements to make sure this doesn't happen again. As Dominic Grieve said, this smacks of a police state. I also wonder whether it shows that our Defamation laws need amending so that it is made clear that the police are excluded from seeking to defend an action for defamation based on disclosure of information about someone's behaviour that was not criminal.

[starvin marvin]

This is a matter of real public interest, and should, as it now is in the public domain. Did he lie? if he did he's toast.

[Guest pelmetman]

starvin marvin - 2017-12-03 11:04 AM

 

This is a matter of real public interest, and should, as it now is in the public domain. Did he lie? if he did he's toast.

 

What's he supposed to be guilty of?.........Having something legal on his computer *-) .........

 

If he is fired then I expect every female MP who's read 50 shades of grey to be fired to >:-) ........

 

 

[Violet1956]

starvin marvin - 2017-12-03 11:04 AM

 

This is a matter of real public interest, and should, as it now is in the public domain. Did he lie? if he did he's toast.

 

I don't have much sympathy for Mr Green but isn't the public interest best served in ensuring that police officers whether retired or not do not disclose information about someone that they gleaned in the course of investigation which did not amount to unlawful conduct? It is no part of a police officer's role to seek to damage someone's reputation. There is otherwise a real danger that police officers would act so as to serve political ends which as far as I understand it is a complete no no in their code of conduct.

[John52]

StuartO - 2017-12-03 10:09 AMIt seems clear to me that the duty of confidentiality owed by policemen should continue to apply beyond their retirement - and so therefore should their accountability for it and perhaps also the risk to their pension if they transgress.  The police exercise powers of search which invade privacy and, apart from giving evidence to a court for purposes of prosecution, they should keep quiet about what they find.  It's a lifelong obligation and it's no different from a doctor's obligation to keep quiet about who he's treated for venereal disease.

 

It is not for a policeman to decide when it is in the public interest to break that confidence; there are avenues of representation he might properly use if he thinks someone is getting away with something he shouldn't but reporting through those channels is as far as his freedom to disclose goes.  The rule for doctors is that they can only reveal information if ordered to do so by a court and so it should be with policemen.

 

So the retired Assistant Commissioner who spilled the beans about the Cabinet Minister should be held to account and pay the price; likewise the retired policeman who endorsed his story.  They have both broken the rules.

 

As far as the Politician who was named to shame, it will be a matter of whether there is convincing evidence of breaking some rules or the law.  It might also be that he will suffer anyway because public confidence in him might be broken, such is the risk which all those who live in the public eye face.  If the information which the policemen revealed was not true (or cannot be shown to be true) then the Politician could sue for defamation and recover damages if he wishes.  The policemen who spilled the beans but lack evidence to prove their story could therefore suffer additional penalities.

 

Anybody want to argue with that interpretation?

I can't disagree with any of that. Just point out the police have been doing it to the little people for years. And are only called into question because they have done it to someone with power and influence.

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-12-03 11:07 AM

 

starvin marvin - 2017-12-03 11:04 AM

 

This is a matter of real public interest, and should, as it now is in the public domain. Did he lie? if he did he's toast.

 

What's he supposed to be guilty of?.........Having something legal on his computer *-) .........

 

If he is fired then I expect every female MP who's read 50 shades of grey to be fired to >:-) ........

 

 

I have no objection to consenting adult pornography. Apparently Britain has more censorship than anywhere else in Europe so if its legal here it can't be too bad.

But the little people get sacked for having porn on their work computer because they are paid to work, not look at porn. Why should Members of Parliament be any different?

[Violet1956]

John52 - 2017-12-03 11:48 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-03 11:07 AM

 

starvin marvin - 2017-12-03 11:04 AM

 

This is a matter of real public interest, and should, as it now is in the public domain. Did he lie? if he did he's toast.

 

What's he supposed to be guilty of?.........Having something legal on his computer *-) .........

 

If he is fired then I expect every female MP who's read 50 shades of grey to be fired to >:-) ........

 

 

I have no objection to consenting adult pornography. Apparently Britain has more censorship than anywhere else in Europe so if its legal here it can't be too bad.

But the little people get sacked for having porn on their work computer because they are paid to work, not look at porn. Why should Members of Parliament be any different?

 

 

Not just the little people remember those two Judges a while back who lost their jobs for doing this. I agree Parliament should have rules about computer misuse.

[malc d]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-03 11:57 AM

 

 

 

. I agree Parliament should have rules about computer misuse.

 

 

 

 

I should think that Parliament - in common with most commercial enterprises will have rules about misuse of computers - BUT if your employers catch you using one for your own purposes it is NOT a police matter if the websites you view are legal..

 

Having watched the interview with the policeman a couple of times I note that he admits he can't prove his allegations -

 

:-|

[Brian Kirby]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-03 11:57 AM

 

John52 - 2017-12-03 11:48 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-03 11:07 AM

 

starvin marvin - 2017-12-03 11:04 AM

 

This is a matter of real public interest, and should, as it now is in the public domain. Did he lie? if he did he's toast.

 

What's he supposed to be guilty of?.........Having something legal on his computer *-) .........

 

If he is fired then I expect every female MP who's read 50 shades of grey to be fired to >:-) ........

 

 

I have no objection to consenting adult pornography. Apparently Britain has more censorship than anywhere else in Europe so if its legal here it can't be too bad.

But the little people get sacked for having porn on their work computer because they are paid to work, not look at porn. Why should Members of Parliament be any different?

 

 

Not just the little people remember those two Judges a while back who lost their jobs for doing this. I agree Parliament should have rules about computer misuse.

So, lets assume that Green is telling the truth, and that he didn't download, or view, any of the porn on his computer.

 

Two possibilities emerge.

 

First that the two retired policemen are lying and there was no porn on the computer. If so, why lie? Odd.

 

Second, the two retired policemen are also telling the truth, in which case someone else, with access to Green's computer, downloaded and viewed the porn without his knowledge.

 

I'm somewhat fazed by the fact that no-one seems to have explored/cited this possibility. There was also supposed to have been a laptop involved, also containing porn thumbnails. Odder.

 

I realise this lays conspiracy upon conspiracy, but isn't the "someone else must have done this" defence a bit obvious? It seems to me odd that it hasn't been run. Is someone perhaps being protected? If so, who, and why? Don'tcha just love conspiracies? :-D

[malc d]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-03 12:47 PM

 

 

 

................ Is someone perhaps being protected?

 

If so, who, and why? Don'tcha just love conspiracies? :-D

 

 

 

Which makes me think " Protected from what ? "

 

( Protected from being exposed for doing something that's perfectly legal ? )

 

 

;-)

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-04 3:47 AM ...Two possibilities emerge. First that the two retired policemen are lying and there was no porn on the computer.....Second, the two retired policemen are also telling the truth, in which case someone else, with access to Green's computer, downloaded .... the porn without his knowledge. ...

 

Or third that a policeman planted the porn on the computer?  It is not unknown for police to plant evidence.

 

Nor is it unknown for police to tell lies to support each other.

 

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2017-12-03 1:09 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-04 3:47 AM ...Two possibilities emerge. First that the two retired policemen are lying and there was no porn on the computer.....Second, the two retired policemen are also telling the truth, in which case someone else, with access to Green's computer, downloaded .... the porn without his knowledge. ...

 

Or third that a policeman planted the porn on the computer?  It is not unknown for police to plant evidence.

 

Nor is it unknown for police to tell lies to support each other.

I believe the police officers related there was a long history which would be difficult to fake. Also I don't know about you but I often search my downloads and my history in order to look for a website that I need to look at again and which I haven't bookmarked. I find it difficult to accept that he wouldn't have found the porn sites in his history. "Guilty" or "innocent", using those terms loosely, the principle of the duty of confidentiality when no offence has been committed should apply. The police have no role in investigating a breach of parliamentary rules unless that breach amounts to a possible crime having been committed. I can't remember if the police search of his office was deemed to exceed their powers can anyone else?

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2017-12-03 1:09 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-04 3:47 AM ...Two possibilities emerge. First that the two retired policemen are lying and there was no porn on the computer.....Second, the two retired policemen are also telling the truth, in which case someone else, with access to Green's computer, downloaded .... the porn without his knowledge. ...

 

Or third that a policeman planted the porn on the computer?  It is not unknown for police to plant evidence.

 

Nor is it unknown for police to tell lies to support each other.

Agreed, but that seems to me a sub-set of "lying". All I'm arguing is either policeman speak truth, or policemen speak with forked tongue! :-)

[malc d]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-03 2:08 PM

 

 

 

I believe the police officers related there was a long history which would be difficult to fake.

 

 

I can't remember if the police search of his office was deemed to exceed their powers can anyone else?

 

 

 

 

I don't know where you heard them talk about a " long history " - in the interviews I have seen they simply said that the porn sites had been accessed in between the sending of e-mails - and it was therefore THEIR OPINION that it was Green that had been viewing those sites.

 

From what I have read / heard - they were exceeding their powers raiding the office as it was a political matter.

 

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-03 2:08 PM..................................I can't remember if the police search of his office was deemed to exceed their powers can anyone else?

There was a goodly row at the time, Veronica, because the leaks were only affected the (I think) Conservative party, and not matters of national security. So it was claimed that the police had exceeded their powers in entering Portcullis House without a warrant and in removing evidence, including computers. From memory, the only reason they (effectively) got away with that was that it suited the leaked upon. Others got correspondingly hot under the collar about breaches of privilege etc. but then, as is the way, it all fizzled out once something else came under the media spotlight.

[Violet1956]

malc d - 2017-12-03 2:27 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-03 2:08 PM

 

 

 

I believe the police officers related there was a long history which would be difficult to fake.

 

 

I can't remember if the police search of his office was deemed to exceed their powers can anyone else?

 

 

 

 

I don't know where you heard them talk about a " long history " - in the interviews I have seen they simply said that the porn sites had been accessed in between the sending of e-mails - and it was therefore THEIR OPINION that it was Green that had been viewing those sites.

 

 

 

 

 

You are probably right. I may have read too much into what was reported.

[RogerC]

So if I have this right (after just a little research), a load of porn was found on Damian Green's computer in 2008 by police investigating a 'leak' of material from the Home Office.

Now in the closing months of 2017 a former Metropolitan Assistant Commissioner goes public and afterwards a former Scotland Yard Detective claims he was shocked by the amount of material found.

If he was/is so shocked why wait almost 10 years to go public?

I find it quite unsettling that two police officers who were investigating the supply of information in a manner that potentially would lead to criminal charges now find it acceptable to 'go public' with (not illegal by all accounts) information gathered during the course of an investigation.  To me that smacks of double standards....investigate a 'leak' and then some 9 years later do the 'leaking' yourself.

I find it amazing that people who are supposedly there to protect and 'serve' find it acceptable to behave in such a manner.  Mind you it's not the first time is it.  It seems to me that as far as the police leadership goes there is, in certain places, a lack of integrity, a questionable morality, a great deal of hypocrisy and too much political posturing and ambition which, in times of political correctness, detracts greatly from the core purpose of their existence which is to 'police'.

I sincerely hope there is a mechanism whereby these two 'retired' (conveniently gets them out of police disciplinary procedures) individuals are met with a robust punishment for what I view as a gross breach of confidentiality (leaking information gained in the course of their duty), the besmirching of an individual who, being in the public domain, will no doubt suffer in terms of work and personal circumstances although he has done nothing 'illegal'.

Bottom line..... I would like to see these two have all pension rights removed.  Clearly they have seriously damaged the reputation of the police and in some quarters done irreparable damage to police/public relations.  Maybe ruination of their lives/reputation as they appear to have vindictively done to Damian Green wouldn't be too severe?  

[StuartO]

I'm ordinarily inclined to support the police in their difficult work and I believe that police officers are much more likely than others (especially politicians) to be truthful and so should be regarded as truthful until proved otherwise.

 

But spilling beans like this is wrong, the revelation was of non-illegal activity (whether or not it was immoral) and the police had a get-your-own-back motive for venegefulness, so their credibility is suspect.

 

The Politician's denial is ambigous - he may not have downloaded it personally and he may not have viewed it (yet) but he hasn't specifically denied that there was porn on his work computer or offered any explanation for porn being there.  So whether he has been a dirty old man or not isn't clear one way or another.

 

[RogerC]

I would like to add to the mix a little.  We are led to believe that the things found on the computer/s was not deemed to be illegal.  One has to accept this is correct otherwise the investigation would, one hopes, have led to further enquiries and charges being brought and there were no charges brought.

So my question is why did the Sunday Times et al run with the story, which really is a non story in itself?  The only possible outcome by dong so is to ruin the reputation/career of someone who has done nothing illegal.  Yet another case of 'what the heck if it ruins someone or not' it sell papers.

[Bulletguy]

 

Must admit i've not followed this case indepth but wonder if anything in Greens history has given the Met police an axe to grind. The porn on his computer allegedly downloaded by him was pretty much page 3 stuff from what i can gather. If computers had been around in the 70's though, most UK cabinet ministers, diplomats, judiciary, and senior police officers would be locked up!

[Brian Kirby]

Further to my post above on the background, I was wrong about it being the Conservatives who called in the police: it was Labour, who were, of course, in Government at the time.

 

Background to the row is here: http://tinyurl.com/ybx8bpnp

 

Happy reading! :-)

[nowtelse2do]

Wasn't Green the one responsible for getting the senior police officer Bob Quick to resign. The speaker of the house at the time was called I think Martin ( surname), a right to??er who should not have let the police search Green's office.

 

Dave

[nowtelse2do]

All this has come about because a lady has accused Green of touching her knee a couple of months ago. Well I must admit that is something I can also be accused of doing.

 

Dave

[Bulletguy]

nowtelse2do - 2017-12-03 6:54 PM

 

Wasn't Green the one responsible for getting the senior police officer Bob Quick to resign. The speaker of the house at the time was called I think Martin ( surname), a right to??er who should not have let the police search Green's office.

 

Dave

Looks like that's the case.....involving the murky world of politics. Seems as i suspected the axe to grind was not without reason.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/damian-green-decade-long-feud-met-officer-bob-quick