.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sunday, May 10, 2009

The final betrayal?

The Home Office civil servant who was sacked for leaking documents to Tory frontbencher Damian Green has been abandoned by the party despite the fact that he believes he was offered a job in return for his cooperation.

The Observer reports that Christopher Galley was arrested and lost his Home Office position after leaking documents to Mr. Green, the shadow immigration minister: He says Green promised to look after him "if things went wrong". Last night a Conservative source said Green did "emphatically not" offer Galley a job. "It is just not true."

The paper says that on 16 April, Galley sent Green an email warning that he would probably be sacked from his £25,000-a-year post. He wrote: "Sorry to keep pestering you, but as I am likely to be out of work soon, do you know of any job vacancies doing anything, for anyone, anywhere?" Galley received a reply four days later in which Green offered only his good wishes.

Nice to know the Tories have not changed.
Contrast the treatment of Clive Ponting, who was not short of speaking engagements after blowing the whistle on the Belgrano (and later gained an academic post, I believe) and Colette Bowe who leaked a memo damaging Michael Heseltine in the Westland affair.
Did the civil servant get confused? He had been leaking information to politicians, in clear breach of the rules under which he was employed. Why did he believe for a minute that he wouldn't be sacked? And why should the Tories arrange a nice little job for him - he has shown that he can't be trusted to abide by his employers' rules.

Are you suggesting, Peter, that it would have been somehow appropriate for the Tories to give him a job now? The civil servant was using his job to serve his own personal agenda, and he either knew what he was doing (and didn't deserve to keep his job) or was naive of the consequences (which would be ... naive)
I think he was very naive and that he genuinely thought he had been promised that he would be looked after. I think it is highly unlikely that any promises were made to him though I cannot say if he was disabused of the notion that he would be OK if he was sacked. It would clearly be inappropriate for the Tories to employ him and I was not suggesting that they should or anything like it. I was just noting the facts as reported.
Thanks for your reply.

Your concluding comment about typical Tories has nothing to do with the "facts as reported" - I would interpret that paragraph to mean that the Tories are carrying on in type. Which would suggest that you think they ought to behave differently. The post is full of innuendo that the Tories have misbehaved in this in some way, but - as usual with innuendo - there is no substance to explain what they ought to have done instead. Which makes the whole thing pretty cheap.
You are both misreading the post and reading too much into the final sentence. That sentence is a direct reference to the offhand way that Green treated Christopher Galley when he was contacted with a request for help. I thought the whole exchange as reported was a bit crass.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?