Theresa May was one of Britain's longest serving Home Secretaries; by being so, she had direct contact with the Crown Prosecution Service at a time when Damian Green was Shadow Immigration Minister and from the back of the arrest of Green, Home Office informers were being investigated in late 2008; to add clarity, the then Labour Home Office were taking steps to prosecute Christopher Galley the Home Office Tory insider at a later date; this was the intention of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith who was apparently oblivious to Galley's in-house espionage.
Naturally, it maybe too late to seize hardware evidence from Home Office records during this epoch to expose veracity, and in any case this possibly isn't in the public's interest to affiliate the Prime Minister with yet another ill-timed transgression from her administration's contagion of incompetence over 'Carillion' contracts in November, knowing full well of the corporations dire financial situation in July. For those who cannot see the conundrum at present, I denote much of the travesty is the same thing... deregulation of credible data equating to a contagion of ethereal content. Examples are at pandemic levels.
In connection to Green's fall from grace, there's an intriguing link to Cressida Dick, who is (since February 2017) Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London. She ironically ran the Met in Bob Quick's absence at a vital time coinciding with the arrest of Christopher Galley; a quest to obtaining evidence and avidly collaborating with the Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green. No charges were brought to Green due to 'deficient evidence' to Quick's annoyance and there was no perceived public interest in Galley either, thus the investigation was unceremoniously dropped, without a fanfare or protest -- Dick's Met appointment came under the slogan 'strong and stable' in the opinion of Toryism she had earned one's spurs; and unbelievably deflected media detection, a true Tory, however surely a Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has to be politically independent as stated during her tenure at the Home Office on the 'Forewords' of all HMI of Constabulary Inquiries affiliated to the Home Office?
Moving onwards, you rapidly compute why Quick seized his opportunity to nail Green in regards to downloaded porn while the Harvey Weinstein debacle was at its apex... that triggered the METOO campaign which started in October 2017, it was for justice, not bad blood. Dominic Grieve who was in opposition publicly announced that Smith would know what was going on because Green was arrested as part of the investigation into the leaks from the Home Office. I'm sure she did, just as May knew about the investigation when she was at the Home Office in 2010, alas on record claimed she didn't recall Green's now illegal activities as head of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, late 2017. And rightly so, there's zero evidence of HO and CPS investigatory reports in regards to HO data surveillance or any illegal breaches thereafter.
Puzzling, because under the Investigatory Powers Act via the European Communities Act 1972; whereby certain procedures should've commenced after the arrests even as a precautionary evaluation to reassure the public by law that no breaches would happen again; hence, was in the publics' interest. Notably, expressed by the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith who announced to the nation an extensive review would be commissioned linking up to both Green and Galley's arrests and how the Home Office can eliminate internal data breaches. The main areas of concern were: comprehending the ease of systematic leaks direct from Home Office personnel to third parties ---- secondly, the ease of private system leaks direct from Home Office personnel to third parties and imperatively securing national security measures beyond what was in place in 2008. in a bid to remove the chance of Home Office security breaches.
On January 20th 2009, the Home Office worked in unison to transform public opinion it was a commendable plan for the public to read under the FOI, it was set in motion, but here's the hiccup ---- only after the conclusions of the Met's Investigations and subsequent legal proceedings. The fact there were also Home Office legal proceedings against the leaker Christopher Galley under data breaches; inadvertently alarmed to the notion in truth they'd been documents available for the public to view under the Investigatory Powers Act - apparently not.
In November 2017, the powers had been flagged up for a change, in tandem with news that Green's office computer had pornography on its hard drive. The governance led with a statement the consortium doesn't consult on regulations, giving the ongoing public interest in Investigatory Powers; the only means of consulting is by parliamentary debate - the government went on to inform they're drafting communications via data code of practice which provides more detail on how the new regime will work in practice. Basically a future 'IP' will be devised whether or not its in the public's interest or not -- going against human rights and the European Communities Act of 1972.
The term 'new regime' implies underhanded state rule... in other terms: democratic corruption; alas, this puppy will be sold in the near future as being a truer democracy, imitating the ideology of Tory Brexiters... yes, the fiasco duped millions. This is the fundamental point ----- when did you here: the only means of consulting is by parliamentary debate before? You'll recall this was mentioned infamously by Theresa May when asked during the General Election 2017, why she wasn't taking part in TV debates by political commentators. Her response was... parliamentary debate is Prime Minister's questions; it is weekly available for all to see. What she doesn't inform you is that MPs in the House of Commons are protected via their parliamentary constitutional privileges unlike any commoner. In a BBC TV Studio, those rights don't apply because the questioners are audience members not bound to Westminster's judicial standards, or parliament's constitutional doctrine (s); henceforth. May's failure in not taking part in the public debates is an indictment to her iniquity.
There was a pinnacle moment and it cometh from Fallon's 'fallen short' of High Office behaviour resignation letter on November 1st 2017; basically preempting what will come out directly from the METOO campaign which linked him with inappropriate behaviour from the past. Fallon's flurried act, alerted my alarm bells; although his resignation allowed May time to rejig her authority and prepare herself for the worse case scenario simultaneously. The Tory philosophy is about creating deviations from actuality Tories only slip off into the heather when actualities are on the horizon or when the deceitfulness is beyond blatant in the public's psyche. Indeed, this naturally leads me on to past deceptions and May. For the record, all of May's discomfiture stems from her first eighty days as Home Secretary which started on May 12th 2010.
Her introduction of legislation to abolish David Blunkett's national identity documents across the UK enabled a complete overhaul of identity data on all databases; she called it, "the first step of many that this government is taking to reduce the control of state over decent, law-abiding people." What about information that comes apparent that law-abiding people are indeed not law-abiding say seven years on? Only the HO could delete Home Office data in correspondence to Data Breach Inquiries / Data Codes of Practices/ Internal Home Office Leaks That Compromises National Security and the shocking reality that a '404 Page Not Found' message disables the public from viewing the results of HMIC Inquiry Publication evidently finalised on October 12th 2009.
The title for your interest was: 'Review Of The Lessons Learned From The MET Investigations Of Home Office Leaks.' Why can't this review be seen in the true transparency that it promised the nation's citizens at the time? I actually question its existence... and in light to what we know years on. The shamed Damian Green's address to parliament in April 2009, is now highly significant and in the public's interest... he announced a total removal of his DNA (odd choice of wording at the time but in context to pornography a Freudian slip) from national databases; his buoyancy went further; he saw it as a real victory for freedom and demanded every record to be demolished for other innocent people too. The evidence shows he got his wish as soon as May became Home Secretary, making ex-Police Chief Bob Quick's statement: "Tories and their supporters are mobilised against the investigations, in a wholly corrupt way" accurate.
Comments
Post a Comment