Time for some answers Nova, page-78

First 78 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Dave R

58,089 Posts.

16

31/10/14

08:58

Post #: 14212870
Share

Originally posted by cobber321 ↑

Alright Lappy probably went overboard with that analogy , try these two - both sides of the fence but not using taxpayers money as kneebone did

scenario 1 : A now labor front bencher whilst working for the union uses her union computer and email address to organise a so called meeting overseas with another union nut for the purposes of a sexual liason under the guise of an official meeting . Also while she is at it sends several nude photos on her work email

scenario 2 : A now liberal minister who previously worked for a merchant bank used his position with the bank to organise an overseas meeting with another bank genious who just happens to be 36.24.36 in the raw . Sends nude photos and details of liason by company email

now i know in both these scenarios there was no taxpayers money being squandered in pursuit of the tryst , however both have used company emails for private business . Which one would you have problem with ?

Answer should be both

neither have the right to privacy because they have both abused their position by using company owned resources for innapropriate purposes

Now tell me what is the difference and which one/s has had their privacy breached

Expand

Firstly you don't know what computer Peris was using. You are assuming it was a work computer which might not be so.
But either way I regard personal communications should remain just that. No politics from me on this and should apply across the board.
Dave R.
Upvote

Reply