Talk:Damian Green

Telegraph

For the benefit of any americans editing this, the Daily Telegraphs nickname is the Torygraph. Tory is a name for the Conservatives, kind of like saying GOP. Except it means cattle thief. Dolive21 (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dolive, that's a very biased way to try to discredit an entire publication's reporting of Green's arrest. Note that just about all the UK newspapers have been reporting this, which criticisms being published in almost as many. The Telegraph is perfectly entitled to be used as a source on this. John Smith's (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Americans? What are you talking about? This is an international encyclopedia, not one exclusively for Americans and Brits. John is right that the Telegraph is a perfectly acceptable source, as would the equally prejudiced Guardian be. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, quite true. This is however the english language Wikipedia, and the majority of editors are americans. Still, a silly mistake. John Smith, I just felt that it's bias might be relevant having found a few references to Telegraph articles. The Guardian has been almost as strongly against the arrest as the Telegraph. In the interest of fairness, the Guardians nickname is the Grauniad, because it used to have a lot of spelling mistakes (and the odd factual one). As a reader of the Guardian and the son of a former sub editor at that paper, both drive me crazy, as does the bias evident in their reporting on some areas. Dolive21 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

'The majority of editors are 'Americans'? where on earth did you dig that up from? It seems that promoting editorial bias isn't your only hobby, we can add making stuff up to the list as well, lol. Twobells (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the Guardian's nickname. And as I said, the fact it and other papers are making criticisms of this mean that any political bias the Telegraph has is quite irrelevant. It is a fairly-well regarded broadsheet. John Smith's (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

in regards to the user Dolive21 comment's, they did Wikipedia editors a great service offering us all a textbook example of bias with his attempts to paint a quality and more importantly legitimate British newspaper as the 'Torygraph', this is how bias worms its way into articles while trying to present itself as 'neutral', we should all thank them while reminding ourselves to look for it in every article. Twobells (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Arrested

What exactly was he arrested for? There are two seperate quotations which conflict with each other... Does the fact that they were counter-terrorism police mean that this was in some way a terrorism investigation or that anti-terrorism powers were used? --Fleeelf (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that both quotations are correct, he was arrested for both conspiring to commit and aiding and abbetting. Still no idea about the terrorism thing though...--Fleeelf (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Commissioner Blair was dismissed because of the Israeli connection to the tender for the Police National Software. Green`s phone was hacked because of AMDOCS in the days before the rampant telephone hacking/wiretapping was published in the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.39.254 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of averting an edit war

There are a few things which we should take into account regarding the recent arrest of Damian Green.

• He was arrested for a common law offence, but questioned under the Official Secrets Act. This is curious, since the OSA itself provides for arrest when required secrecy has been broken. This would suggest the information was not covered by much more than the standard "Restricted" grade, which applies in theory to most documents of the Home Office, MoD, etc., but in practice is simply there to remind those responsible for them not to leave them on the train. Or stand outside foreign embassies reading them. Restricted grade material is available to the most junior grade civil servants on their very first day of work, and should never contain material which, if leaked, would require the police to intervene; conversely use of the higher grades of secrecy (Confidential and above) would almost automatically involve the police, and require the use of OSA for arrest and charge. It would be open and shut, in that case. As has been said this morning, if he had been arrested under OSA, no-one would have batted an eyelid.

Incidentally, whilst Wikipedia currently gives two conflicting statements as to the lowest grade of secrecy, "Restricted" must be it unless there's some poor chump in an office somewhere stamping billions of documents until the end of time.

• The Official Opposition has the right to oppose the government, and it is this which is "the right" referred to in the article. "stopped short of identifying the right" etc. is unwelcome, I think. In fact, the removal or non-existence of this right would reduce Britain to a one-party state, which even the Home Secretary is currently against, though she clearly finds it irksome when people disagree with her (but it's unlikely she believes a one-party system would be beneficial). Opposing the government means finding out the difference between what they are claiming is the case (eg. the introduction of a licensing system for security workers is a success, being embraced by the industry) and what is actually the case (eg. licenses are being granted without proper checks into criminality or other automatic disqualifiers being made). Sometimes this does mean the information comes from civil servants, and in fact, it's not uncommon. Just this week BBC News online reported an anonymous "Scotland Yard source" as saying the investigation into this affair would go move forward to discussion with the CPS - commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation is itself a clear criminal offence. Where's the arrest there? Precisely. And that's why so many people are up in arms about this whole thing.

• The appearance of cronyism. Mr Green received information from a person known to him through his work as a Conservative, whose given aim was once to become a Conservative councillor. Whilst I concede this may be as bad as it looks, the information released was indeed in the public interest (barring any which was said to be passed that the police have not detailed publicly, but which must be detailed at any trial brought forward) and it is unclear how many if any other MP's (whose offices are supposed to be protected under parliamentary privelige) Mr Galley knows. If it's one or two, but not well, it is unsurprising he would choose to pass the information to Mr Green, even if all the others are also Conservatives. Had he passed the information to for example Tony Benn, we would most likely never have seen this series of events because Tony Benn is a Labour party member (thereby skirting the issue of cronyism) - but he is also an MP, and would, probably, have released the information to the public or used it to question the government in the Commons, that being part of the job he has agreed to do.

We could, if we were not NPOV, take up the matter of the inquiry headed by Ian Johnston [1] as police cronyism - after all, there's an independent police complaints commission. Set up at great expense with resistance from within certain police forces. Why not hand it to the IPCC, instead of a serving police officer who may well see this as a chance for promotion?

Well, on balance, because he is a police officer. They can't all be bent. And he undoubtedly knows that if no charges are brought - if the case does not proceed to trial - his report will probably spell the end for several of his colleague's careers. On the other hand, if charges are brought, but thrown out at trial, it's the end of his career unless he says he was against the whole thing... which wouldn't endear him to the Met... etc.

And of course, it may well go to the IPCC in any case.

92.4.2.97 (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the ratings are as follows:

• Eyes only
• Top Secret
• Secret
• Restricted
• Unrestricted

By the way, can we please not include "X didn't say....." unless it is citable. The text I reverted was rather POV. John Smith's (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maiden speech

I removed:

making a faux pas in having already asked a question of Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown earlier the same day. "House of Commons Hansard Debates". 20 May 1997. Retrieved 2009-01-12.

It's not a faux pas to ask a question in a question time session before making one's maiden speech - a maiden speech is the member's first formal speech in a debate, not just the first time they pipe up from the floor. It takes weeks or months to get through the many maiden speeches in each new parliament - members can hardly be expected to keep schtum until their turn arrives. 109.154.71.0 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

This article is currently seriously imbalanced - Green has been an MP since 1997, and so has a fairly lengthy political career to write about, but this article devotes most of its length to his arrest in 2008. That's understandable, as it is arguably the most notable thing that's happened to him, but given that the arrest didn't result in charges being brought it now looks a bit excessive. That section ought to be cut down, and the section on the rest of his career expanded if possible, to turn this into more of a biography and less of an article about a single news story. Robofish (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the article and the bias is still there - let me get my pruning shears. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Damian Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202031314/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Politics/Damian-Green-Arrest-Harriet-Harman-Calls-For-Review-Of-Police-Powers/Article/200811415167424?lpos=Politics_News_Your_Way_Region_6&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15167424_Damian_Green_Arrest%3A_Harriet_Harman_Calls_For_Review_Of_Police_Powers to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Damian-Green-Arrest-Harriet-Harman-Calls-For-Review-Of-Police-Powers/Article/200811415167424?lpos=Politics_News_Your_Way_Region_6&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15167424_Damian_Green_Arrest%3A_Harriet_Harman_Calls_For_Review_Of_Police_Powers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220163304/http://www.findmypast.com/BirthsMarriagesDeaths.jsp to http://www.findmypast.com/BirthsMarriagesDeaths.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)