Who's said this?
Or this?
What's the point of having this discussion before we at least know what he's been charged with?
I had never even heard of Toren Smith before this thread popped up.
The question of what the point is of discussing this matter (by 'this matter' I mean the implications for us of Toren Smith's arrest and what he is alleged to have done) is a good one. I said it was a matter of public interest and it is. It's important to understand and raise awareness of the risks and dangers to policiticians and the public that this case highlights, its important to understand the political implications and its important to learn the lessons for yourself. I dont take orders from politicians. I dont allow politicians or their hangers-ons to decide for me what aspects of their activities (alleged or otherwise) I can comment upon upon and I dont allow policiticians to decide for me what I can or cannot discuss.
Simply saying 'innocent until proven guilty' and refusing to discuss the matter for the next six to twelve months until Toren Smith is ultimately either cleared or convicted isnt good enough. And the fact that you've never heard of Toren Smith before isnt really that relevant. I would prefer to know about the risks and dangers for everyone now, especially for the Toren Smiths and other innocent, uncharged and unconvicted persons of this world, rather than 6 to 12 months from now. If you're not bothered then that's on you. No one is going to arrest you for listening to what I have to say.
As others have pointed out, there are a load of ways in which Toren Smith could be innocent. His computer could have picked up a virus, someone else could have been misusing it without his knowledge, some dodgy person in an otherwise legitimate chatroom or bulletin board could have spammed him and a bunch of other people, someone from his personal or political life could have stitched him up, he could be the victim of identity or credit card theft and so on. Councillors get hundreds of emails and messages a month. The dodgy email in my example could have sat there for ages without Smith noticing it. Or he could have seen a piece of spam, deleted it immediately and thought no more about it.
The point is about all the different ways an innocent person like Smith can get into trouble. How do you guard against that happening to you? Assuming (which the law says we must) that this happened to Smith, how did it happen? Arent you the least bit interested so that you can guard against the same thing happening to you? Is saying 'innocent until proven guilty' and putting a lid on it for the next 12 months really going to help you in the long run?
Once again, assuming Smith either missed it because he was too busy answering other more high priority messages or because he saw it as spam and immediately deleted it, would that stop him from being charged? And how long would it take for the police to search his computer and find the truth? Dont forget Operation Ore where the combination of credit card theft, sloppy and incompetent police work and public pressure on the police to nail alleged child pornography consumers resulted in careers, reputations and lives being destroyed. What are Smith's options if the police find something which he didnt know was there, but cant prove intent to possess (because there were viruses, because he either didnt open it or immediately deleted it etc)? If the police pressure him to accept a caution (as happened with innocent people caught up in Operation Ore) where does that leave him?
Then there is the political issue. How did Lambeth Council and Lambeth Labour Group allow one of its leading (and innocent) members to get into trouble like this? What were they doing? What does this say about all the computers currently issued to councillors and council officers (assuming for the sake of argument that it was a Council computer that the police seized)? What steps are being taken by the Council and Labour Group in the wake of this affair to prevent other innocent people innocently getting into similar trouble? What are the ethics of telling people words to the effect of 'please wipe anything you think is dodgy off your council computer immediately'?
And look at what Steve Reed did. Given the loads of different ways in which Smith could be innocent (he is innocent now, but its the way he is that matters here), did Steve Reed cut him loose too soon? Or should he have said "its okay everyone. Toren Smith is innocent until proven guilty. Please dont discuss this in public, please carry on as if nothing had happened"?
And if he did, what does that say about the way Lambeth Labour operates? Are people really saying that we should wait 6 to 12 months to find out the answers to those questions? What lessons can other Lambeth politicians learn from this? Are we really saying that the public isnt entitled to know how its elected representatives operate, particularly in times of crisis?
There is also the human aspect for me. I am sorry for Toren Smith. He was not one of my favourite politicians, but I wouldnt wish this on my worst enemy. This is a terrible, terrible way to go. But We're both human beings and although I sympathise with him I also need to know what happened, because the fact that there are a thousand million ways in which ordinary human beings can screw up (by getting arrested) or be screwed over by others, including by people you've been working alongside for years and thought were your friends is a lesson in principle that is worth learning over and over and over again.
Is that enough point for you?
