Watching pornography at work is 'unacceptable', says Tory Cabinet minister Justine Greening

The Education Secretary's comments come amid allegations that her Cabinet colleague Damian Green had pornography on his work computer in 2008

Most employers would find it unacceptable to watch pornography in the workplace, according to the Education Secretary Justine Greening, who said it is important to have “high standards” in public life.

Her comments come as Damian Green, the effective deputy prime minister, faces allegations that his computer, seized by police in 2008, contained “thousands” of thumbnail images of legal pornography.

Mr Green, who serves as First Secretary of State, is the Prime Minister’s closest ally in Downing Street and vehemently denies he either watched or downloaded porn on his work computer almost a decade ago.

On Friday, the former Scotland Yard detective Neil Lewis told the BBC he was involved in analysing the then opposition immigration spokesperson’s computer during a police investigation into Home Office leaks.

He said that although “you can’t put fingers on a keyboard”, a number of factors meant that he was sure it was Mr Green himself who was accessing the “thumbnail” images.

Asked on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show whether it was OK to watch porn at work, Ms Greening replied: “Well, there are clear laws. I think most employers would say it wasn’t acceptable.”

But asked whether there was a “police vendetta” against her colleague, the Cabinet minister said the police needed to consider any steps in the wake of the leaks from the former detectives.

“I think there are two parts to this,” she said. “One is the Cabinet Office review into the behaviour of Damian Green and secondly, I think, any steps the police need to be taking in relation to what would seem to be a breach of police professionalism, in breaching privacy.

Ms Greening declined to comment directly on the investigation into Mr Green, but added: "I think it is important that we have high standards in public life."

The allegations levelled against Mr Green echoed claims made by former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, who went public last month with his account of material discovered during an investigation into Home Office leaks.

But when Mr Lewis came forward on Friday, a series of Tory MPs and police chiefs rallied around the embattled Cabinet minister. It was reported that David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, has even threatened to resign should his Mr Green be dismissed following the allegations dating back to 2008.

On Sunday, the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt added he has "confidence" in and "absolutely" trusts Mr Green.

Speaking on ITV's Peston On Sunday, he said: "I do have confidence in Damian Green and I have actually been in a situation Damian Green was in, where you are in the eye of a storm and everyone thinks you've done an absolutely terrible thing and what I learnt from that is that you have to wait until an investigation is completed.

"And I was vindicated at the end of that process in my own case but I think we have to allow the Cabinet Office to complete their investigation.

"I know Damian Green as a colleague and I trust him absolutely and that's why I believe what he says, but there is an investigation... and I think... we should wait."

Dominic Grieve, a senior Tory MP and former Attorney General, also came to the defence of the embattled cabinet minister. “This can’t be right,” he told BBC’s Newsnight. “They are in flagrant breach of their own code of conduct and practice.”

He continued: “It has the smack of the police state about it. I find it very worrying. We give the police powers that other people do not have. They are not and must not be allowed to abuse those powers.”

Friends of Mr Green said they were “gobsmacked” by the allegations from the former detective and “outraged” at the BBC for broadcasting them.

Speaking to reporters outside his home in Kent on Friday, the Cabinet minister said: “I have maintained all along and I still maintain – it is the truth – that I did not download or look at pornography on my computer, but obviously while the investigation is going on I can’t say anymore.”

Ms Greening also cast doubt on Donald Trump’s anticipated visit to Britain next year, adding that his retweets of the far-right organisation, Britain First, “don’t particularly make any such visit a positive one”.

Echoing the words of the Prime Minister in relation to the incendiary social media posts, the Education Secretary said: “I think he was wrong to make those retweets. And I of course think Britain First is a group that is beyond the pale.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/justine-greening-porn-work-employers-tory-cabinet-theresa-may-damian-green-a8089226.html


And yet May still hasn't done anything about him, or any of the others accused of sexual harrassment. - 35 of them I believe it is now.

Can someone explain to me what has sexual harrassment, got to do with looking at porn online?



Is this some Sharia law concept?

Nothing to be done

The investigation is illegal and so is the evidence.

Green is innocent of any wrong doing.

But vicious dried up old man hating feminazis are no better than ISIS and will do anything to destroy peoples lives

So I guess you watch porn at work and are a bit worried Smelly lol

sassy wrote:So I guess you watch porn at work and are a bit worried Smelly lol

Can someone explain to me what has sexual harrassment, got to do with looking at porn online?

 

Is this some Sharia law concept?

sassy wrote:So I guess you watch porn at work and are a bit worried Smelly lol

It's not really about watching porn at work though is it

It's about the illegal nature through which it was acquired.

It seems you are happy to suspend due process when it suits you.

I take it you are in favour of gitmo then??

I mean, I am really intererested in this concept sassy has.

I mean, I have. As well as millions played Wolfenstein. Where you basically shoot up many German Nazi's.

Has it made me want to kill and murder Germans?

Lets see what sassy says. As she seems to be making a connection to sexual harrassment, based on watching something.

sassy wrote:The Education Secretary's comments come amid allegations that her Cabinet colleague Damian Green had pornography on his work computer in 2008

Most employers would find it unacceptable to watch pornography in the workplace, according to the Education Secretary Justine Greening, who said it is important to have “high standards” in public life.

Her comments come as Damian Green, the effective deputy prime minister, faces allegations that his computer, seized by police in 2008, contained “thousands” of thumbnail images of legal pornography.

Mr Green, who serves as First Secretary of State, is the Prime Minister’s closest ally in Downing Street and vehemently denies he either watched or downloaded porn on his work computer almost a decade ago.

On Friday, the former Scotland Yard detective Neil Lewis told the BBC he was involved in analysing the then opposition immigration spokesperson’s computer during a police investigation into Home Office leaks.

He said that although “you can’t put fingers on a keyboard”, a number of factors meant that he was sure it was Mr Green himself who was accessing the “thumbnail” images.

Asked on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show whether it was OK to watch porn at work, Ms Greening replied: “Well, there are clear laws. I think most employers would say it wasn’t acceptable.”

But asked whether there was a “police vendetta” against her colleague, the Cabinet minister said the police needed to consider any steps in the wake of the leaks from the former detectives.

“I think there are two parts to this,” she said. “One is the Cabinet Office review into the behaviour of Damian Green and secondly, I think, any steps the police need to be taking in relation to what would seem to be a breach of police professionalism, in breaching privacy.

Ms Greening declined to comment directly on the investigation into Mr Green, but added: "I think it is important that we have high standards in public life."

The allegations levelled against Mr Green echoed claims made by former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, who went public last month with his account of material discovered during an investigation into Home Office leaks.

But when Mr Lewis came forward on Friday, a series of Tory MPs and police chiefs rallied around the embattled Cabinet minister. It was reported that David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, has even threatened to resign should his Mr Green be dismissed following the allegations dating back to 2008.

On Sunday, the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt added he has "confidence" in and "absolutely" trusts Mr Green.

Speaking on ITV's Peston On Sunday, he said: "I do have confidence in Damian Green and I have actually been in a situation Damian Green was in, where you are in the eye of a storm and everyone thinks you've done an absolutely terrible thing and what I learnt from that is that you have to wait until an investigation is completed.

"And I was vindicated at the end of that process in my own case but I think we have to allow the Cabinet Office to complete their investigation.

"I know Damian Green as a colleague and I trust him absolutely and that's why I believe what he says, but there is an investigation... and I think... we should wait."

Dominic Grieve, a senior Tory MP and former Attorney General, also came to the defence of the embattled cabinet minister. “This can’t be right,” he told BBC’s Newsnight. “They are in flagrant breach of their own code of conduct and practice.”

He continued: “It has the smack of the police state about it. I find it very worrying. We give the police powers that other people do not have. They are not and must not be allowed to abuse those powers.”

Friends of Mr Green said they were “gobsmacked” by the allegations from the former detective and “outraged” at the BBC for broadcasting them.

Speaking to reporters outside his home in Kent on Friday, the Cabinet minister said: “I have maintained all along and I still maintain – it is the truth – that I did not download or look at pornography on my computer, but obviously while the investigation is going on I can’t say anymore.”

Ms Greening also cast doubt on Donald Trump’s anticipated visit to Britain next year, adding that his retweets of the far-right organisation, Britain First, “don’t particularly make any such visit a positive one”.

Echoing the words of the Prime Minister in relation to the incendiary social media posts, the Education Secretary said: “I think he was wrong to make those retweets. And I of course think Britain First is a group that is beyond the pale.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/justine-greening-porn-work-employers-tory-cabinet-theresa-may-damian-green-a8089226.html


And yet May still hasn't done anything about him, or any of the others accused of sexual harassment. - 35 of them I believe it is now.

Would you prefer that she sacked him before the investigations have been completed and the case against him proved - or disappointingly for you - disproved? Because until that time he is just as entitled as anyone else to stand by his protestations of innocence and not to be tried and found guilty by Left Wing social media kangaroo courts desperately hoping to gain power by default.

If I asked why Corbyn had done nothing about Lord Bassam, the current Labour Leader in the House of Lords, allegedly fiddling his expenses (for which read "stealing from the taxpayer") you would be all over me like a rash screaming that I wanted him punished before being proved guilty, contrary to both the letter and spirit of the law.

The difference between us is that you clearly want Tories to be hanged, drawn and quartered on a suspicion  simply because they are Tories, whereas I would not expect, want or call for Labour politicians to be punished for something until I knew for certain that they had done it.

Listen, if you find a private place, watch some porn and you have a quick wank, I really don't see the problem.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:The Education Secretary's comments come amid allegations that her Cabinet colleague Damian Green had pornography on his work computer in 2008

Most employers would find it unacceptable to watch pornography in the workplace, according to the Education Secretary Justine Greening, who said it is important to have “high standards” in public life.

Her comments come as Damian Green, the effective deputy prime minister, faces allegations that his computer, seized by police in 2008, contained “thousands” of thumbnail images of legal pornography.

Mr Green, who serves as First Secretary of State, is the Prime Minister’s closest ally in Downing Street and vehemently denies he either watched or downloaded porn on his work computer almost a decade ago.

On Friday, the former Scotland Yard detective Neil Lewis told the BBC he was involved in analysing the then opposition immigration spokesperson’s computer during a police investigation into Home Office leaks.

He said that although “you can’t put fingers on a keyboard”, a number of factors meant that he was sure it was Mr Green himself who was accessing the “thumbnail” images.

Asked on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show whether it was OK to watch porn at work, Ms Greening replied: “Well, there are clear laws. I think most employers would say it wasn’t acceptable.”

But asked whether there was a “police vendetta” against her colleague, the Cabinet minister said the police needed to consider any steps in the wake of the leaks from the former detectives.

“I think there are two parts to this,” she said. “One is the Cabinet Office review into the behaviour of Damian Green and secondly, I think, any steps the police need to be taking in relation to what would seem to be a breach of police professionalism, in breaching privacy.

Ms Greening declined to comment directly on the investigation into Mr Green, but added: "I think it is important that we have high standards in public life."

The allegations levelled against Mr Green echoed claims made by former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, who went public last month with his account of material discovered during an investigation into Home Office leaks.

But when Mr Lewis came forward on Friday, a series of Tory MPs and police chiefs rallied around the embattled Cabinet minister. It was reported that David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, has even threatened to resign should his Mr Green be dismissed following the allegations dating back to 2008.

On Sunday, the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt added he has "confidence" in and "absolutely" trusts Mr Green.

Speaking on ITV's Peston On Sunday, he said: "I do have confidence in Damian Green and I have actually been in a situation Damian Green was in, where you are in the eye of a storm and everyone thinks you've done an absolutely terrible thing and what I learnt from that is that you have to wait until an investigation is completed.

"And I was vindicated at the end of that process in my own case but I think we have to allow the Cabinet Office to complete their investigation.

"I know Damian Green as a colleague and I trust him absolutely and that's why I believe what he says, but there is an investigation... and I think... we should wait."

Dominic Grieve, a senior Tory MP and former Attorney General, also came to the defence of the embattled cabinet minister. “This can’t be right,” he told BBC’s Newsnight. “They are in flagrant breach of their own code of conduct and practice.”

He continued: “It has the smack of the police state about it. I find it very worrying. We give the police powers that other people do not have. They are not and must not be allowed to abuse those powers.”

Friends of Mr Green said they were “gobsmacked” by the allegations from the former detective and “outraged” at the BBC for broadcasting them.

Speaking to reporters outside his home in Kent on Friday, the Cabinet minister said: “I have maintained all along and I still maintain – it is the truth – that I did not download or look at pornography on my computer, but obviously while the investigation is going on I can’t say anymore.”

Ms Greening also cast doubt on Donald Trump’s anticipated visit to Britain next year, adding that his retweets of the far-right organisation, Britain First, “don’t particularly make any such visit a positive one”.

Echoing the words of the Prime Minister in relation to the incendiary social media posts, the Education Secretary said: “I think he was wrong to make those retweets. And I of course think Britain First is a group that is beyond the pale.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/justine-greening-porn-work-employers-tory-cabinet-theresa-may-damian-green-a8089226.html


And yet May still hasn't done anything about him, or any of the others accused of sexual harassment. - 35 of them I believe it is now.

Would you prefer that she sacked him before the investigations have been completed and the case against him proved - or disappointingly for you - disproved? Because until that time he is just as entitled as anyone else to stand by his protestations of innocence and not to be tried and found guilty by Left Wing social media kangaroo courts desperately hoping to gain power by default.

If I asked why Corbyn had done nothing about Lord Bassam, the current Labour Leader in the House of Lords, allegedly fiddling his expenses (for which read "stealing from the taxpayer") you would be all over me like a rash screaming that I wanted him punished before being proved guilty, contrary to both the letter and spirit of the law.

The difference between us is that you clearly want Tories to be hanged, drawn and quartered on a suspicion  simply because they are Tories, whereas I would not expect, want or call for Labour politicians to be punished for something until I knew for certain that they had done it.

Utter bollocks. Lord Bassam who, contrary to popular belief was made a Lord in 1997, therefore not by Corbyn (Mail can't help itself can it) has fessed up and has offered to pay back the money. It seems what he did was not against the rules but against the spirit of the rules and therefore he should definitely pay it back at least. May has already said that the investigation into Green will not be published (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/24/damian-green-inquiry-report-into-allegations-may-not-be-published). No transparency there then.

The only reason it's such a problem is because of po faced liberals who have no sense of humour.

Like that horse faced jess Phillips, I bet shes the biggest morale thief going.

does she even know how to smile with those horse teeth of hers if does she just flash them in anger when she is neighing in outraged over EVERYTHING??

Is social ineptness better or worse than blatant antisemitism

eddie wrote:Listen, if you find a private place, watch some porn and you have a quick wank, I really don't see the problem.

If you did it in your workspace, even without the wank, it would be a sackable offence.  The Council in Green's constituency have just sacked two workers for it and others have resigned after being found out.   I can't think of one company who don't have it as a sackable offence.   Also, there were thousands of instances of it, and the porn was extreme.   Do you know the definition of extreme porn?

First Secretary of State and de facto deputy PM Damian Green has denied responsibility for ‘extreme pornography’ that senior police allege was found on his parliamentary computer.

Articles by the Metro and S*n today claim that the material found on Green’s computer would have been illegal if discovered eight weeks later, when the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 came into force in January 2009.

While the newspapers do not go into the details of the type of material allegedly on Green’s computer, the Act lists only four types of pornography that are considered ‘extreme’:




Based on the police description and the newspaper claims today, the material found on the parliamentary computer must fit into one of those categories – none of them palatable.

Green has denied that the police raised the matter with him at the time the computers were seized. But if the material is ultimately attributed to him, his position on the Tories’ front bench must surely become untenable.

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/18/nature-of-greens-alleged-parliament-porn-revealed/

Yeah but it hasn't JUST happened has it??

This is from years ago.

Statute of limitations applies

Oh, do tell me how it applies as we are discussing something that has to do with work contract and HOC rules. Come on Smelly, keep up.

sassy wrote:Oh, do tell me how it applies as we are discussing something that has to do with work contract and HOC rules.   Come on Smelly, keep up.  

That's fine, but let's be realistic here

It happened how many years ago?? He wasn't fired then, he shouldn't be fired now.

Times change and you can't retroactively hammer people for things they did years ago on the lunatic standards we have today.

If we continue down this route we will be declaring all WWII vets to be war criminals and terrorists

Erm.....smelly.........we dont have a statute of limitation.

Although tbf he did get found with em BEFORE tgis kinda Shit became illegal.Threfore of course he has commited no CRIMINAL offence (since laws are not applicable retroactively).

Whether he has breached his contract with his employer is of course a different matter but it should be noted is a matter of contract law.

Jesus wept, I borrowed the term to convey meaning, do I really have to explain every little thing??

Precision is especially important when discussing law. After all the meaning of a word in law shall be the plain meaning of the word in english (usually referenced to the OED )

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:Listen, if you find a private place, watch some porn and you have a quick wank, I really don't see the problem.

If you did it in your workspace, even without the wank, it would be a sackable offence.  The Council in Green's constituency have just sacked two workers for it and others have resigned after being found out.   I can't think of one company who don't have it as a sackable offence.   Also, there were thousands of instances of it, and the porn was extreme.   Do you know the definition of extreme porn?

First Secretary of State and de facto deputy PM Damian Green has denied responsibility for ‘extreme pornography’ that senior police allege was found on his parliamentary computer.

Articles by the Metro and S*n today claim that the material found on Green’s computer would have been illegal if discovered eight weeks later, when the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 came into force in January 2009.

While the newspapers do not go into the details of the type of material allegedly on Green’s computer, the Act lists only four types of pornography that are considered ‘extreme’:




Based on the police description and the newspaper claims today, the material found on the parliamentary computer must fit into one of those categories – none of them palatable.

Green has denied that the police raised the matter with him at the time the computers were seized. But if the material is ultimately attributed to him, his position on the Tories’ front bench must surely become untenable.

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/18/nature-of-greens-alleged-parliament-porn-revealed/

So no evidence, just some far left antisemitic website assumtions then sassy?

Lord Foul wrote:Precision is especially important when discussing law. After all the meaning of a word in law shall be the plain meaning of the word in english (usually referenced to the OED )

I'm not really sure the law matters in the court of social media and public opinion

smelly-bandit wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Precision is especially important when discussing law. After all the meaning of a word in law shall be the plain meaning of the word in english (usually referenced to the OED )

I'm not really sure the law matters in the court of social media and public opinion

Of cause it would when there is threats to life.

I mean you're breath is definately toxic, but thankfully, most people are immune to your deadly toxins.

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Would you prefer that she sacked him before the investigations have been completed and the case against him proved - or disappointingly for you - disproved? Because until that time he is just as entitled as anyone else to stand by his protestations of innocence and not to be tried and found guilty by Left Wing social media kangaroo courts desperately hoping to gain power by default.

If I asked why Corbyn had done nothing about Lord Bassam, the current Labour Leader in the House of Lords, allegedly fiddling his expenses (for which read "stealing from the taxpayer") you would be all over me like a rash screaming that I wanted him punished before being proved guilty, contrary to both the letter and spirit of the law.

The difference between us is that you clearly want Tories to be hanged, drawn and quartered on a suspicion  simply because they are Tories, whereas I would not expect, want or call for Labour politicians to be punished for something until I knew for certain that they had done it.

Utter bollocks.  Lord Bassam who, contrary to popular belief was made a Lord in 1997, therefore not by Corbyn (Mail can't help itself can it) has fessed up and has offered to pay back the money.  It seems what he did was not against the rules but against the spirit of the rules and therefore he should definitely pay it back at least.   May has already said that the investigation into Green will not be published (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/24/damian-green-inquiry-report-into-allegations-may-not-be-published).   No transparency there then.

Did I say when Bassam became a member of the House of Lords?

Did I say that he was Corbyn's nomination?

Did I say that he hadn't owned up to it?

If a Tory in similar circumstances claimed that such, er, creative accounting "...was not against the rules but only against the spirit of the rules.." you would be shrieking like a goosed nun - or, to avoid your usual howl of "sexism", shrieking like a goosed monk about corruption, cronyism and malfeasance in office.

The fact is that you are utterly incapable of accepting even the mildest criticism of Labour without descending into paroxysms of almost uncontrolled hysteria and histrionics.

And you accuse others of posting "utter bollocks."

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:


Utter bollocks.  Lord Bassam who, contrary to popular belief was made a Lord in 1997, therefore not by Corbyn (Mail can't help itself can it) has fessed up and has offered to pay back the money.  It seems what he did was not against the rules but against the spirit of the rules and therefore he should definitely pay it back at least.   May has already said that the investigation into Green will not be published (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/24/damian-green-inquiry-report-into-allegations-may-not-be-published).   No transparency there then.

Did I say when Bassam became a member of the House of Lords?

Did I say that he was Corbyn's nomination?

Did I say that he hadn't owned up to it?

If a Tory in similar circumstances claimed that such, er, creative accounting "...was not against the rules but only against the spirit of the rules.." you would be shrieking like a goosed nun - or, to avoid your usual howl of "sexism", shrieking like a goosed monk about corruption, cronyism and malfeasance in office.

The fact is that you are utterly incapable of accepting even the mildest criticism of Labour without descending into paroxysms of almost uncontrolled hysteria and histrionics.

And you accuse others of posting "utter bollocks."

+1

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

sassy wrote:


Utter bollocks.  Lord Bassam who, contrary to popular belief was made a Lord in 1997, therefore not by Corbyn (Mail can't help itself can it) has fessed up and has offered to pay back the money.  It seems what he did was not against the rules but against the spirit of the rules and therefore he should definitely pay it back at least.   May has already said that the investigation into Green will not be published (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/24/damian-green-inquiry-report-into-allegations-may-not-be-published).   No transparency there then.

Did I say when Bassam became a member of the House of Lords?

Did I say that he was Corbyn's nomination?

Did I say that he hadn't owned up to it?

If a Tory in similar circumstances claimed that such, er, creative accounting "...was not against the rules but only against the spirit of the rules.." you would be shrieking like a goosed nun - or, to avoid your usual howl of "sexism", shrieking like a goosed monk about corruption, cronyism and malfeasance in office.

The fact is that you are utterly incapable of accepting even the mildest criticism of Labour without descending into paroxysms of almost uncontrolled hysteria and histrionics.

And you accuse others of posting "utter bollocks."

As you very well know, because I posted it in plain english, I pointed out what THE MAIL was saying. I was also stating the fact that it was against the spirit of the rules if not actually against the rules and therefore paying it back was the LEAST he could do. The written word is supposed to be important to you, therefore do not misrepresent what is written to confirm your own prejudices.

Ms. Greening should be given a badge for "Stating the bleeding obvious"...

Many kinds of sites are obviously unacceptable for work-related computers ==  including porn, gambling, private/non--work-related social media, gaming sites..

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Did I say when Bassam became a member of the House of Lords?

Did I say that he was Corbyn's nomination?

Did I say that he hadn't owned up to it?

If a Tory in similar circumstances claimed that such, er, creative accounting "...was not against the rules but only against the spirit of the rules.." you would be shrieking like a goosed nun - or, to avoid your usual howl of "sexism", shrieking like a goosed monk about corruption, cronyism and malfeasance in office.

The fact is that you are utterly incapable of accepting even the mildest criticism of Labour without descending into paroxysms of almost uncontrolled hysteria and histrionics.

And you accuse others of posting "utter bollocks."

As you very well know, because I posted it in plain english, I pointed out what THE MAIL was saying.   I was also stating the fact that it was against the spirit of the rules if not actually against the rules and therefore paying it back was the LEAST he could do.   The written word is supposed to be important to you, therefore do not misrepresent what is written to confirm your own prejudices.

I hope the written word is important, because your grammar is worse than mine.



Seriously, if you are the propaganda machine of Corbyn. Then we have nothing to worry about

You are seriously that stupid and have no idea to answer peoples questions. Just like Corbyn and Co.

You just continually misdirect

Perhaps people would work better if they were allowed to relieve themselves of sexual tension. Might lead to less affairs within the workplace which would lead to fewer marriages breaking up.

eddie wrote:Perhaps people would work better if they were allowed to relieve themselves of sexual tension. Might lead to less affairs within the workplace which would lead to fewer marriages breaking up.

FGS Eddie, have you ever been to the HOC? People are being shown round all the time (including school children) and interns are in and out of offices etc. Oh yes, let's have them all wanking all over the place. If they are that desperate they can go in the toilets, at least that has tissue handy.

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:Perhaps people would work better if they were allowed to relieve themselves of sexual tension. Might lead to less affairs within the workplace which would lead to fewer marriages breaking up.

FGS Eddie, have you ever been to the HOC?   People are being shown round all the time (including school children) and interns are in and out of offices etc.   Oh yes, let's have them all wanking all over the place.   If they are that desperate they can go in the toilets, at least that has tissue handy.

See, the first signs of communism

Do as I say

The most ridiculous argument, is one like the above. Never understanding humans and kind of from the mindset of convent. It shows sassy has no understanding on this.

She seems to stupidly think, every boy would be wanking over a urinal and not care that if caught. They would have the shit ripped out of them.

Hence why sassy talks bollocks and has not a clue.

eddie wrote:Perhaps people would work better if they were allowed to relieve themselves of sexual tension. Might lead to less affairs within the workplace which would lead to fewer marriages breaking up.

Not nice for the cleaner having to mop up wads of semen from his desk and empty his bin filled with sperm soaked tissues.

Angry Andy wrote:

eddie wrote:Perhaps people would work better if they were allowed to relieve themselves of sexual tension. Might lead to less affairs within the workplace which would lead to fewer marriages breaking up.

Not nice for the cleaner having to mop up wads of semen from his desk and empty his bin filled with sperm soaked tissues.

For fuck sake, because tissues soiled are more of a problem than phlegm or chewing gum in bins?

Why are you lefties such idiots?

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:Perhaps people would work better if they were allowed to relieve themselves of sexual tension. Might lead to less affairs within the workplace which would lead to fewer marriages breaking up.

FGS Eddie, have you ever been to the HOC?   People are being shown round all the time (including school children) and interns are in and out of offices etc.   Oh yes, let's have them all wanking all over the place.   If they are that desperate they can go in the toilets, at least that has tissue handy.

Yes obviously sassy. If it's a day of visits then it goes without saying - have your wank when you get up.
I'm talking generally. I'd assumed that was evident.

Angry Andy wrote:

eddie wrote:Perhaps people would work better if they were allowed to relieve themselves of sexual tension. Might lead to less affairs within the workplace which would lead to fewer marriages breaking up.

Not nice for the cleaner having to mop up wads of semen from his desk and empty his bin filled with sperm soaked tissues.

Yeah because when men wank they leave a trail of spunk in their wake.

Do they have toilets, do you reckon, where one can put "sperm-soaked tissues"?

Maybe they should just attach a whore house to the bar??

Fuck.

Why am I listening to two OAPs talking about wanking??

[quote="sassy"]

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Did I say when Bassam became a member of the House of Lords?

Did I say that he was Corbyn's nomination?

Did I say that he hadn't owned up to it?

If a Tory in similar circumstances claimed that such, er, creative accounting "...was not against the rules but only against the spirit of the rules.." you would be shrieking like a goosed nun - or, to avoid your usual howl of "sexism", shrieking like a goosed monk about corruption, cronyism and malfeasance in office.

The fact is that you are utterly incapable of accepting even the mildest criticism of Labour without descending into paroxysms of almost uncontrolled hysteria and histrionics.

And you accuse others of posting "utter bollocks."

As you very well know, because I posted it in plain english, I pointed out what THE MAIL was saying.   I was also stating the fact that it was against the spirit of the rules if not actually against the rules and therefore paying it back was the LEAST he could do.   The written word is supposed to be important to you, therefore do not misrepresent what is written to confirm your own prejudices.[/quote]

What "prejudices"? Unlike you I am not an apologist for any political party and regard anything that emanates from a party source, be it the Head of Communications or a keyboard propagandist, with the deepest suspicion.

What "misrepresentation"? My comment was in direct response to your own and perhaps you should remember that the sanctions that you are no doubt in a position to impose on members of your own forum do not necessarily apply to all of us in here.

I used a current news item (which I read not in the Mail but in another national newspaper) in an entirely non-judgemental manner and only as a relevant classic example of your own inherently blatant double standards.

Was the single syllable conjunction "if" beyond your comprehension?

smelly-bandit wrote:
Fuck.

Why am I listening to two OAPs talking about wanking??

There is something seriously wrong with this thread when Smelly' makes much more sense than those he's criticising !!!

eddie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
Not nice for the cleaner having to mop up wads of semen from his desk and empty his bin filled with sperm soaked tissues.

Yeah because when men wank they leave a trail of spunk in their wake.  

Do they have toilets, do you reckon, where one can put "sperm-soaked tissues"?

For God's sake Eddie...I love you dearly but I am just about to eat my dinner!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

eddie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
Not nice for the cleaner having to mop up wads of semen from his desk and empty his bin filled with sperm soaked tissues.

Yeah because when men wank they leave a trail of spunk in their wake.  

Do they have toilets, do you reckon, where one can put "sperm-soaked tissues"?

For God's sake Eddie...I love you dearly but I am just about to eat my dinner!

I gotta say it how it is Fred, you know this.
Hope you're not having a white, cheesy sauce.

smelly-bandit wrote:Fuck.

Why am I listening to two OAPs talking about wanking??

Because you're jealous???????

eddie wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

For God's sake Eddie...I love you dearly but I am just about to eat my dinner!

I gotta say it how it is Fred, you know this.
Hope you're not having a white, cheesy sauce.

Aaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! Where's the nearest bog?

Interesting discussion.

As a librarian, my peers and I talk a lot about this subject as a first amendment right when it comes to adults watching legal pornography on library public access computers or WIFI, as in is it censorship if we block access to it for patrons?

We do use filters as per federal and state laws. But if a patron wants me to unblock a site I can at my discretion. My issue is that I do not have separate children’s or adult computers so I would say no. If I had separate areas then it wouldn’t be an issue.

Personally I think that taxpayers monies should not provide access to this. If you want it, you find a way to pay for it. It isn’t a necessity or matter of life or death. But that is my personal opinion and that does not and cannot affect how I work.

Cass wrote:Interesting discussion.

As a librarian, my peers and I talk a lot about this subject as a first amendment right when it comes to adults watching legal pornography on library public access computers or WIFI, as in is it censorship if we block access to it for patrons?

We do use filters as per federal and state laws. But if a patron wants me to unblock a site I can at my discretion. My issue is that I do not have separate children’s or adult computers so I would say no.  If I had separate areas then it wouldn’t be an issue.

Personally I think that taxpayers monies should not provide access to this. If you want it, you find a way to pay for it. It isn’t a necessity or matter of life or death. But that is my personal opinion and that does not and cannot affect how I work.

For some reason I am reminded of the story of Michael O'Flaherty from Dublin who landed at JFK Airport to be confronted by a somewhat intimidating customs officer who growled at him: "Do you have any pornography in your luggage?"

"Ah, no sor," said Michael. "And what would be the use of it anyways, 'cause I wouldn't be having a pornograph to play it on."

smelly-bandit wrote:Maybe they should just attach a whore house to the bar??

At least a masturbatorium. Someplace quiet, where a guy can have a wank at morning and afternoon break.

Cass wrote:Personally I think that taxpayers monies should not provide access to this. If you want it, you find a way to pay for it. It isn’t a necessity or matter of life or death. But that is my personal opinion and that does not and cannot affect how I work.

Well, since you brought up the First Amendment, Cass, how about religion?  Can an atheist librarian block all religious sites?  Especially, since the First Amendment forbids establishment of religion?  Wouldn't that be like when Roy Moore, when he put a statute of the Ten Commandments up in his Courthouse?  Or, for that matter, prohibition of religion?  I'd like to hear your mates' opinion.

And how about people's right to be free of advertising?  Do people have a First Amendment right to silence...to be free of something they don't want to hear?  Interesting questions.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Cass wrote:Interesting discussion.

As a librarian, my peers and I talk a lot about this subject as a first amendment right when it comes to adults watching legal pornography on library public access computers or WIFI, as in is it censorship if we block access to it for patrons?

We do use filters as per federal and state laws. But if a patron wants me to unblock a site I can at my discretion. My issue is that I do not have separate children’s or adult computers so I would say no.  If I had separate areas then it wouldn’t be an issue.

Personally I think that taxpayers monies should not provide access to this. If you want it, you find a way to pay for it. It isn’t a necessity or matter of life or death. But that is my personal opinion and that does not and cannot affect how I work.

For some reason I am reminded of the story of Michael O'Flaherty from Dublin who landed  at JFK Airport to be confronted by a somewhat intimidating customs officer who growled at him: "Do you have any pornography in your luggage?"

"Ah, no sor,"  said Michael. "And what would be the use of it anyways, 'cause I wouldn't be having a pornograph to play it on."

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:Personally I think that taxpayers monies should not provide access to this. If you want it, you find a way to pay for it. It isn’t a necessity or matter of life or death. But that is my personal opinion and that does not and cannot affect how I work.

Well, since you brought up the First Amendment, Cass, how about religion?  Can an atheist librarian block all religious sites?  Especially, since the First Amendment forbids establishment of religion?  Wouldn't that be like when Roy Moore, when he put a statute of the Ten Commandments up in his Courthouse?  Or, for that matter, prohibition of religion?  I'd like to hear your mates' opinion.

And how about people's right to be free of advertising?  Do people have a First Amendment right to silence...to be free of something they don't want to hear?  Interesting questions.

No we can’t. We cannot bring our personal beliefs to Work, although a lot try, and they are completely in the wrong. We have to be neutral. If people can’t be, then they’re in the wrong profession. It’s why for instance that I used to purchase some of Bill O’Reilly’s outrageously wrong so-called history books, because patrons were requesting it, although since he was fired I’ve not had one! In my 15 year career, I’ve only had one serious and formal request for taking a book off the shelf and funnily enough that was in England 10 years ago but it was overturned by our county administration. We have books on all religions and political beliefs. I’ve even had copies of the Anarchist’s Cookbook in some branches, but it was for in library use only since it was so expensive to replace. What I want does not count (although to be fair I have snuck in a history/biography that I’ve wanted to read a couple of times).

Libraries are no longer quiet spaces. If they have the room, they can offer study rooms or quiet zones/floors or even earplugs to buy, but it’s been a big culture change over the last decade. Patrons are slowly getting used to it. As a public space, patrons cannot have unrealistic expectations.

At this time of year there’s a HUGE “discussion “ among librarians about whether or not to decorate for the “holidays” starting in October. It gets quite ugly. I stay out of it and do a few modest things at my branch, but then I’m totally different from a large urban library in New York for example.

Yeah.  Porn always seems to be a special topic, subject to censorship. Everything else, you have to carry books on it.

I don't know why people fear it so much.  Except I think, they fear sex in general.  I don't know how it is in other countries, but here in America people are very ignorant about sex, no doubt because it is such a taboo.

Watching porn at work and relieving sexual tension while at work is becoming the norm or should be?
What next to become commonplace along the sexual freedom road 'Sexual emergencies' perhaps.
The reason why its censored may be that, people are forced to participate in the making of it, people who don't wish to see it might have to put up with others watching it, some people become unhealthily obsessed and act out what they see, whether or not they have permission from another party, children seem especially vulnerable - see the post of the nine year old. I don't believe people who don't watch porn hate sex, probably far from it.