First Secretary of State Damian Green sacked for lying to paraliment

Damian Green, one of Theresa May’s closest allies, has been sacked from the cabinet after an inquiry found he had breached the ministerial code.

He was “asked to quit” after he was found to have made “inaccurate and misleading” statements over what he knew about claims pornography was found on his office computer in 2008.

He also apologised for making writer Kate Maltby feel uncomfortable in 2015.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/embed/p05rnrsn/42434802

Laura Kuenssberg said the PM “had little choice but to ask him to go”.

The BBC’s political editor said the departure of a close friend left Mrs May a “lonelier figure”.

Mr Green, 61, who as first secretary of state was effectively the PM’s deputy, is the third cabinet minister to resign in the space of two months – Michael Fallon and Priti Patel both quit in November.

Laura Kuenssberg on Damian Green sacking
In her written response, Mrs May expressed “deep regret” at Mr Green’s departure but said his actions “fell short” of the conduct expected of a cabinet minister.

He had been under investigation regarding allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards journalist and Tory activist Ms Maltby. He denied suggestions that he made unwanted advances towards her in 2015.

He also denied that he had either downloaded or viewed pornography on a computer removed from his Commons office in 2008.

I asked you to resign
An official report by the Cabinet Office found that public statements he made relating to what he knew about the claims were “inaccurate and misleading” and constituted a breach of the ministerial code.

The report also found that although there were “competing and contradictory accounts of what were private meetings” between himself and Ms Maltby, the investigation found her account “to be plausible”.

Kate Maltby’s account was found to be plauisible, the report says.

Her parents, Colin and Victoria Maltby, said in a statement they were not surprised to find that the inquiry found Mr Green to have been “untruthful as a minister, nor that they found our daughter to be a plausible witness”.

They praised their 31-year-old daughter for her courage in speaking out about the “abuse of authority”.

Ms Maltby is not commenting on Mr Green’s resignation until she receives more details from the Cabinet Office.

In his resignation letter, Mr Green said statements he made about what he knew about the pornography could have been “clearer”, conceding that his lawyers had been informed by Met Police lawyers about their initial discovery in 2008 and the police had also raised the matter with him in a phone call in 2013.

“I apologise that my statements were misleading on this point,” he said.

Damian Green was a confidant of the prime minister for many years.

May a lonelier figure now
Damian Green sitting alongside Theresa May at Priminister questions.

Damian Green has never been a politician with a huge public persona, or even a hugely well-known character.

But he was an extremely important ally of Theresa May. Not just a political friend but a genuine one, close to her for decades.

The government, so the joke in Westminster goes, has become “weak and stable”, with number 10 taking back some control of the agenda in recent weeks.

So it is not likely that Mr Green’s exit will suddenly unleash another bout of turmoil.

But the prime minister clearly took this decision very seriously.

She is a politician who guards her views, her own persona very closely. To lose one of the few who understood her, who she trusts, leaves her a lonelier figure.

In her reply, the PM said while the report had found his conduct to have been “professional and proper” in general, it was right that he had apologised for making Ms Maltby “feel uncomfortable”.

Addressing breaches of the ministerial code, she added: “While I can understand the considerable distress caused to you by some of the allegations made in the past few weeks, I know that you share my commitment to maintaining the high standards that the public demands of ministers of the crown.

“It is therefore with deep regret that I asked you to resign from the government and have accepted your resignation.”

Damian Green’s resignation letter in full. He was found to have breached the Ministerial Code for saying he didn’t know about pornography found on his computer, which investigation said was ‘misleading’

Skip Twitter post by @BBCHelenCatt
Damian Green’s resignation letter in full. He was found to have breached the Ministerial Code for saying he didn’t know about pornography found on his computer, which investigation said was ‘misleading’ pic.twitter.com/Es4i5ZUsth

— Helen Catt (@BBCHelenCatt) December 20, 2017
Report
End of Twitter post by @BBCHelenCatt
Skip Twitter post 2 by @BBCHelenCatt
And the PM’s reply to Damian Green

pic.twitter.com/Dg86XgbSVb

— Helen Catt (@BBCHelenCatt) December 20, 2017
Report
End of Twitter post 2 by @BBCHelenCatt

Mr Green’s political future has been in question since Ms Maltby claimed in an article in the Times that the minister “fleetingly” touched her knee in a pub in 2015 and in 2016 sent her a “suggestive” text message which left her feeling “awkward, embarrassed and professionally compromised”.

Mr Green, an acquaintance of the journalist’s parents, said the claims were “hurtful” and “completely false”.

But they were referred for investigation by top civil servant Sue Gray – who is examining other claims that emerged during a swirl of allegations about harassment and other misconduct at Westminster.

The inquiry was subsequently expanded to consider claims that legal pornography was found on a computer removed from Mr Green’s office in the House of Commons in 2008.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/embed/p05rp8dy/42434802

It was one of a number of possessions seized by the police during a controversial inquiry into the leaking of official documents by a civil servant to Mr Green, at the time a shadow Home Office minister under David Cameron.

Mrs May, who has known Mr Green since they were contemporaries at Oxford, brought him into the cabinet after she became PM in 2016 and promoted him to first secretary of state in July.

Since then, he has played a substantial role behind the scenes chairing key cabinet committees and has also deputised for Mrs May at Prime Minister’s Questions.

It is not clear who will replace him in those roles but unconfirmed reports have suggested there will be no announcement until the New Year, with Parliament due to go on recess on Thursday.

With many thanks to: BBC England for the origional story

Unionists protest at SF guard over shot Adams

Confidential files released

TODAY sees the release of previously confidential files from Stormonta and the NIO (Northern Ireland Office) covering the two years 1983 and 1984. This marks a change as Public Records Office be gains to phase towards a new ’20-year rule’. In total 1,047 files are released today of which 225 are subject to full closure while 366 are subject to ‘redaction’ or blacking-out. Those partially closed include files on the use of baton rounds, ‘political developments’ and ‘compensation to innocent victims’. Many are of these files are partially closed until 2067 (I wonder what they are hiding about the Shame Fein sellouts). Reporting on the Belfast files for the Irish News is Dr Damon Phoenix, a political historian and broadcaster and author of Northern Nationalism 1890-1940 (1994) and co-author of Conflicts in the North of Ireland 1900-2000 (Four Courts Press, 2010). Irish government files are released today under the ‘30-year rule.’ Reporting from Dublin is the Press Association‘s Ed Carty. The next lot of pages will be dedicated to these newly released files.

STATE PAPERS Belfast and Dublin

ON March 14 1984 Gerry Adams, the new Shame Fein MP for West Belfast, and three companions were shot and wounded by the UFF while driving back from a court appearance in Belfast city centre. Mr Adams was rushed to the Royal Victoria Hospital for emergency surgery.

Show your anger at Shame Fein ‘VOTE INDEPENDENT’ !!!

Mr Adams stay in hospital was the subject of a series of complaints by the Ulster Unionist MP for South Belfast, Rev Martin Smyth alleging that Shame Fein leader was being ‘guarded’ by republicans at the RVH. In a note on file for the NIO uunder-secretary, John Patten on March 22 1984, R F Sterling, an official at the DHSS reported that Rev Smyth had phonened the minister’s office to complain about reports that Shame Fein members were gaurding the West Belfast MP and his colleagues. According to Sterling, Rev Smyth was “particularly indignant that these people were reported to be stopping and questioning members of the public within the hospital”.

Sterling explained to the minister that Adams and his companions had been housed in a secure ward and placed under the protection of armed police. All four, he noted, were material witnesses to an armed assault and “clearly their lives were at risk”. Questioned by Rev Smyth in the House of Commons on March 21, 1984 about the alleged ‘Shame Fein guard’ over Mr Adams, secretary of state Jim Prior insisted that the Shame Fein leader “was given medical attention under the protection of the RUC”. He also rejected a claim that British Intelligence had been aware of the murder bid on Mr Adams in advance. In a letter to Rev Smyth on March 22 1984 Mr Prior admitted that the hospital authorities believed that during Mr Adams ‘ stay at the RVH some members of Shame Fein might have been present but that they were confined to the public areas and “were not guarding” the Shame Fein leader.

With many thanks to: Dr Eamon Phoenix, The Irish News.

Related articles

This lady needs legal advice our help – PLEASE IF ABLE TO HELP PLEASE CONTACT ME !!

1085215_169492543239114_1981868868_o

Anna MacIntyre

This is a sworn affidavit by a solicitor and it was dismissed as HEARSAY along with all the evidence on this page. We now have to wait 4 years for an appeal to the supreme court in Ireland. This is not a joke and if you would not mind posting this page to anyone such as media, politicians etc that might be able to help it would be much appreciated.

International Treaties and the Royal Prerogative

560464_429871947025722_100000087601398_161822

Select Committee on Constitution Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum by Mr A Dakers

International Treaties and the Royal Prerogative

Ministers of the Crown have, from time to time entered into treaties on behalf of the UK. It should be noted that the Ministers concerned must seek authority from the Crown by the Royal Prerogative before signing. Because the Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the provisions of the common law, which were recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights, such Royal Prerogative has the following restrictions. (The term “prerogative” means a right or privilege exclusive to an individual or class).

(a)  Prerogative cannot be used in an innovatory way. If this were not so, the executive could dispense with Parliament and Judiciary and become an unlimited tyranny. Any future Attorney General could claim that an edict was part of a treaty and it would become unquestionable.

(b)  The use of Prerogative power may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (The case of Nichols v. Nichols stated “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice”.)

Royal Prerogative may not be used to suspend or offend against Statutes in Force. This comes from the Bill of Rights and the Coronation Oath Act which specifies the following form of words; “Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . . . according to their respective laws and usages.” Prospective Monarch: “I solemnly promise so to do.” Note the similarity to the Judicial Oath. This is because the Courts dispense justice on behalf of the Crown.

The Limitations of Royal Prerogative are clear:

“No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the King ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the King. If any prerogative is disputed, the Courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law.”

Bowles v Bank of England (1913) confirmed that, “the Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject can not be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions”.

The Bill of Rights 1688 is a declaration of the common law. It is also an operative Statute. It contains the Oath of Allegiance, which is required by Magna Carta to be taken by all Crown servants including members of the Armed Forces, MP’s, and the Judiciary. They are required not to “take into consequence or example anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties”.

The Oath required of Crown servants includes “I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance . . . “The qualification “true” confirms that allegiance is not required to a Monarch whose actions are unlawful.

It can be shown that we have recently had a coup-d’etat in this country. This was accomplished when the Government took control over the armed forces to use them for political purposes.

The Bill of Rights allows the Crown a standing army in peace time and who’s members swear allegiance to defend Her “in person Crown and dignity against all enemies”. No one else (except the Duke of Argyll), is allowed an army.

The Armed Forces Act 1996 purports to allow the Crown to set aside the requirement for annual army acts. It states that the Crown may authorise the armed forces by “Order in Council“. This provision would permit the Government to use the Armed Forces even if Parliament was suspended, and is contrary to the intent of the Bill of Rights.

Various defence reviews have resulted in the Government issuing mission statements that claims that the forces role in future is to defend the Realm and “to implement Government policy, in particular foreign policy”. This is from documents published by the MOD and available from them and on the Web. It means that the Government is now claiming that it can use the Army for its own purposes where the safety of the Realm is not threatened. Serving members of the Forces have been invited to sign new contracts agreeing to this new arrangement. Recent recruiting adverts for the Forces reflect this. A recent cinema advert for the RAF depicts a foreign “peace keeping” operation and has the slogan “Their country needs you”.

This is a equivalent to a coup.

13 August 2005

Helpful Addresses To Help Support The Repatriation Of Michael Campbell.

1044170_1390295744519286_789359173_n

Repatriate Michael Campbell Campaign

Helpful addresses to support Michael.

Department of the Taoiseach

Government Buildings

Upper Merrion Street

Dublin 2

Ireland

taoiseach@taoiseach.gov.ie

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

80 St. Stephen’s Green

Dublin 2

Ireland

tanaiste@dfa.ie

Department of Justice and Equality

94 St. Stephen’s Green

Dublin 2

Ireland

minister@justice.ie

The Irish Embassy in Lithunia:

Irish Embassy in Vilnius,

Lithuania

Gedimino pr. 1

01103 Vilnius

Lithuania

Telephone (+370) 5 2699460

Telefax (+370) 5 2699462

Lithuanian Embassy Dublin

LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOS A

MBASADA AIRIJOJE

47 Ailesbury Road,

Ballsbridge, Dublin 4

IRELAND

Tel. +353 1 2035757

MICHAEL CAMPBELL

Pravieniskiu Pataisos

Namai-Atuiroji Kolonlja

2-oji Valdyba

Pvavieniskiu # 1x

Kaisiadoriu

LT-56552

Lithuania

LITHUANIAN PROSECUTOR.

Gedgaudas Norkunas

Prosecutor

Vilnius regional

prosecutor’s office

Rinktinés str. 5a

09233 Vilnius

Lithuania

300 GAGGING ORDERS SILENCE PUBLIC-SECTOR WORKERS SINCE 2009 !

‘It is a matter that the NI executive needs to address in terms of accountability – Kieran Bannon.

1025852_139132239623474_1209397014_o

THREE hundred so-called gagging orders have been used to silence public-sector workers – the majority former police officers – since 2009. The orders can be used to prevent staff speaking publicly to the press about their former employer.

Also known as confidentiality clauses, they are usally agreed when an employee is made redundent or leaves an employer following a workplace issue or disagreement. More than 230 police officers and 50 staff members at the Stormont executive agreed to confidentiality clauses. The clauses can be used in settlement agreements to stop industrial tribunal cases being heard and can cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds. In March the British government banned gagging orders for NHS employees after it emerged that more than £18 million had been spent on silencing 600 staff. The issue has caused uproar at Westminster, with communities secretary Eric Pickles warning against using “under-the-counter pay-offs to silence departing staff”.

Civil service union Nipsa expressed concerns over public funds being used “simply to silence individuals”. Kieran Bannon, assistant general secretary of Nipsa, said that confidentiality clauses can “undermine the principles of accountability and propriety”. “It is a matter that the NI executive needs to address in terms of accountability, firstly in relation to the use of public funds but equally the accountability of public-sector employers for their actions,” he said. A total of 236 PSNI officers agreed to confidentiality clauses as part of employment tribunal settlements. Almost 200 of these were part of a class action settled earlier this year, according to a freedom of information request submitted by  The Irish NewsThe Department for Social Development (DSD) accounted for the vast majority of the confidentiality clauses used in the executive, with 39 imposed since 2009.

Five staff members in the Department of Agriclture and Rural Development agreed to confidentiality clauses as part of compromise agreements. The Department of Health also used confidentiality clauses in two out-of-court settlements relating to industrial tribunal cases. Other public bodies also revealed some employees agreed to gagging orders over the past four years. Eight assembly staff members agreed to confidentiality clauses. None of the cases prevented employees from whistleblowing. A total of 16 Western Health and Social Care Trust employees and one ambulance service staff member agreed to confidentiality clauses since 2009. One Belfast trust employee agreed to a confidentiality clause as part of the termination arrangement. The trust said the clause was mutually agreed and phrased to “protect both the employer and employee”, with no specific clauses in relation to the press. According to employment lewyers, most compromise agreements include confidentiality clauses. They can be used to bar employees from talking publicly or to the press about their former employer of the circumstances under which they left. Mr Bannon said confidentiality clauses usually form part of compromise agreements and are used in tribunal settlements to stop cases being heard. “Nipsa would have concern if public funds were used simply to silence individuals,” he said. “The use of confidentiality clauses means the general workforce and the public are not aware of the actions of the employer and in a case involving public-sector staff it is even more important that the employer is held to account for its actions given the potential impact on public funds.” No figures were available to determine how much was spent in the north’s staff settlements that used confidentiality clauses. A DSD spokesman said : “We are not in a position to make an informed comment how this department’s figures compare to others. DSD is, however, the largest of the Northern Ireland Civil Service departments.”

With many thanks to : Brendan HughesIrish News.

CONTINUED ABUSE OF CHILDREN AND ILLEGAL STOP SEARCHES BY THE PSNI/RUC

harrassment

Derry 32 County Sovereignty Movement

JUN

17

Continued abuse of Children and illegal stop searches by the RUC

A young mother was travelling with her partner and her 10 year old son when stopped by the RUC/PSNI who followed them before deciding to stop and search them as they passed through a Loyalist area. She was told that they intended to carry out a search under the illegal section 44 and proceeded to conduct a search. They stated then that they intended to conduct a search on her 10 year old son who in fear clung to his mother and while searching him they pulled down the trousers of the youngster.

The young mother and child were absolutely distraught and this shows that the supposed new face of policing have no qualms about abusing young children to enforce their will upon parents.

May 11

RUC/PSNI target infants and family at Toy Store

Derry 32 County Sovereignty Movement would like to bring to the attention of the General public the ongoing targeting and abuse of Children by the Sectarian force who run amok under the banner of  “Police Service of Northern Ireland.”

The devolution of Policing and renaming of the Royal Ulster constabulary is merely what a lot of people had guessed it would be… A simple cosmetic exercise designed to try and lend a veneer of respectability around a Corrupt British Sectarian force.