Originally Posted by western

Originally Posted by rickshaw-major

I stand corrected - he has gone full stop.

At least he did the decent thing! And good on him for it.

He is now of course exempt any internal disciplinary process and his pension is secure, not so gracious or decent.

The reports I have seen say he has resigned from the Met. But does this mean that he has left the police full stop? I ask because I know a copper who resigned from the Met, not in order to leave the police, but because he wanted to join a different police agency.

Originally Posted by ashie

Originally Posted by bobthedog

And I repeat for your benefit Ashie, no charges yet have been brought against Green or the CS involved, I guess waiting for a bad news day to dismiss the investigation, though there have been so many bad news days recently I dont know why that hasnt happened yet.

Quick was a fool to get himself embroiled in the way he did. He has made a massive error and now he has gone, the Met police will be better off without him.

To a partisan hack like you, it doesn't matter that a senior CT officer has gone. The only thing that matters is that he wasn't "one of us".

Disgusting.

I am perplexed by that last piece from you Ashie. Any Police officer owes his allegiance to the Crown. It isn't, nor should it ever become, a political appointment so I don't see where the 'one of us' comment comes from. Labour were very quick to point out, after the anti-Tory tirade, was not speaking for them and that he was fully independent.
It does matter that a senior CT officer has gone, it matters a great deal. What matters the most is that one of the most senior CT policemen in the country made a fundamental error and breach of security. How is anyone ever going to be able to trust him again. Will external agencies from foreign countries ever pass him secret information again? How will his subordinates act, don't bother with all that security malarkey, the boss doesn't.
I fully understand that you have party, political and idealogical beliefs and that you hold them very dear. However, when you attempt to defend the indefensible purely because you see it as a bloody nose for your political party then you cease to have any part top play in debate. To debate you must be seen as reasonable and with strong and sound reasoning to back up your argument not just saying everything your party does is right and everything the opposition do is wrong. This especially falls flat when you support a party that has 'borrowed' a lot of its current ideology from the 'wrong' party. Don't defend the indefensible and you stand more chance of winning debates.

According to the Times Mr Quick has resigned with full pension rights, anticipated to be in excess of £100k a year.

Originally Posted by ashie

Originally Posted by bobthedog

And I repeat for your benefit Ashie, no charges yet have been brought against Green or the CS involved, I guess waiting for a bad news day to dismiss the investigation, though there have been so many bad news days recently I dont know why that hasnt happened yet.

Quick was a fool to get himself embroiled in the way he did. He has made a massive error and now he has gone, the Met police will be better off without him.

To a partisan hack like you, it doesn't matter that a senior CT officer has gone. The only thing that matters is that he wasn't "one of us".

Disgusting.

Ok Ashie , let's look this.

The Prime Minister has just been quoted as saying the Police had to "Move early to foil a very big plot"

However

Prime minister Gordon Brown today said the police services, who arrested 12 men, had been investigating a "major terrorist plot". Speaking in Carlisle, he said: "Our first concern is always the safety of the public. It is right that we took the urgent action that we did over the course of yesterday. I have spoken to Bob Quick this morning and thanked him for his years of service. He has apologised for what went wrong yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ap...ror-raids-leak

So if the Police were going to "act very fast to foil a very big plot", then why is the Prime Minister accepting an apology and resignation?

And as for the 'very big plot'

Fahy admitted that the operation had been rushed forward as a result of the security blunder by Quick, which exposed plans for the operation to the cameras of press photographers.

However, Fahy added: "The operation would have been carried out in the subsequent 24 hours.

"It got to a point in evaluating what we knew that we had to take action yesterday."

Fahy said reports of Old Trafford or the Trafford shopping centre being the targets were "purely speculation" on the part of the media.

He added that, from what was known at the moment, there was no particular threat to specific locations and "certainly not the ones mentioned in the media".

However, he added that the threat level in the north-west remained high.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ap...aida-terror-uk

So someone is talking absolute bollox Ashie, who do you think it is?

Markintime well said. Nobody prompted Quick to display that sensitive document, in the same way that nobody prompted him to come out and criticise the tories for the problems over his business. It was he who was the hothead who attracted attention to himself and his family.

I am not a Tory and remain a floating voter, however this man was not fit for his position and could no longer be trusted to conduct his duties in an impartial, or sensitive manner. Moreover he endangered his colleagues by his idiocy in Downing street and failing to obey simple and sensible rules about carrying classified documents.

Originally Posted by PartTimePongo

Originally Posted by ashie

Originally Posted by bobthedog

And I repeat for your benefit Ashie, no charges yet have been brought against Green or the CS involved, I guess waiting for a bad news day to dismiss the investigation, though there have been so many bad news days recently I dont know why that hasnt happened yet.

Quick was a fool to get himself embroiled in the way he did. He has made a massive error and now he has gone, the Met police will be better off without him.

To a partisan hack like you, it doesn't matter that a senior CT officer has gone. The only thing that matters is that he wasn't "one of us".

Disgusting.

Ok Ashie , let's look this.

The Prime Minister has just been quoted as saying the Police had to "Move early to foil a very big plot"

However

Prime minister Gordon Brown today said the police services, who arrested 12 men, had been investigating a "major terrorist plot". Speaking in Carlisle, he said: "Our first concern is always the safety of the public. It is right that we took the urgent action that we did over the course of yesterday. I have spoken to Bob Quick this morning and thanked him for his years of service. He has apologised for what went wrong yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ap...ror-raids-leak

So if the Police were going to "act very fast to foil a very big plot", then why is the Prime Minister accepting an apology and resignation?

And as for the 'very big plot'

Fahy admitted that the operation had been rushed forward as a result of the security blunder by Quick, which exposed plans for the operation to the cameras of press photographers.

However, Fahy added: "The operation would have been carried out in the subsequent 24 hours.

"It got to a point in evaluating what we knew that we had to take action yesterday."

Fahy said reports of Old Trafford or the Trafford shopping centre being the targets were "purely speculation" on the part of the media.

He added that, from what was known at the moment, there was no particular threat to specific locations and "certainly not the ones mentioned in the media".

However, he added that the threat level in the north-west remained high.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ap...aida-terror-uk

So someone is talking absolute bollox Ashie, who do you think it is?

bobthedog, as usual.

No Ashie it is you who is totally out of your depth here, as I have pointed out earlier.

This officer screwed up big time, failed to follow simple rules and jeopardised an operation with a potential for lives to be endangered.

Originally Posted by bobthedog

No Ashie it is you who is totally out of your depth here, as I have pointed out earlier.

This officer screwed up big time, failed to follow simple rules and jeopardised an operation with a potential for lives to be endangered.

Stop rising to his bait, if everyone ignores him he'll go away. Just stop reading his posts, they're full of crap anyway. Just scroll on by... ;)

[quote="Markintime"]

Originally Posted by ashie

Originally Posted by bobthedog

And I repeat for your benefit Ashie, no charges yet have been brought against Green or the CS involved, I guess waiting for a bad news day to dismiss the investigation, though there have been so many bad news days recently I dont know why that hasnt happened yet.

Quick was a fool to get himself embroiled in the way he did. He has made a massive error and now he has gone, the Met police will be better off without him.

To a partisan hack like you, it doesn't matter that a senior CT officer has gone. The only thing that matters is that he wasn't "one of us".

Disgusting.

I am perplexed by that last piece from you Ashie. Any Police officer owes his allegiance to the Crown. It isn't, nor should it ever become, a political appointment so I don't see where the 'one of us' comment comes from. Labour were very quick to point out, after the anti-Tory tirade, was not speaking for them and that he was fully independent.

You need to check out the tosh coming from, amongst others, bobthetwit.

It does matter that a senior CT officer has gone, it matters a great deal. What matters the most is that one of the most senior CT policemen in the country made a fundamental error and breach of security. How is anyone ever going to be able to trust him again. Will external agencies from foreign countries ever pass him secret information again? How will his subordinates act, don't bother with all that security malarkey, the boss doesn't.

Tosh. Damn tosh. After all the high publicity opprobrium heaped on Quick, I can't imagine that anyone would have been left in any doubt as to the seriousness of the error.

I fully understand that you have party, political and idealogical beliefs and that you hold them very dear. However, when you attempt to defend the indefensible purely because you see it as a bloody nose for your political party then you cease to have any part top play in debate. To debate you must be seen as reasonable and with strong and sound reasoning to back up your argument not just saying everything your party does is right and everything the opposition do is wrong. This especially falls flat when you support a party that has 'borrowed' a lot of its current ideology from the 'wrong' party. Don't defend the indefensible and you stand more chance of winning debates.

It is not I bringing politics into this - as you would see if you would cast off your own blue blinkers for a moment. My "crime" has been to point out the party political postings of others. And I definitely do not support any party with Tory or Tory-lite policies.

Ashie, kindly have the manners to answer my post. Properly this time.