Phillip Green

[panoma1]

2 hours ago, aris said:

Looks like the CPS are fond of NDA's too.  Protecting their reputation?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/paul-gambaccini-payout-crown-prosecution-service-unfounded-historical-sex-abuse-allegations-a8615516.html

No wrongdoing of course - nothing to see - move along....

 

So the public ain't allowed to know what public services spend (and how much!) the publics money on? Therefore they are unaccountable!............If this ain't misuse of NDA's I don't know what is!

 

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

So the public ain't allowed to know what public services spend (and how much!) the publics money on?

Detailed Government expenditure (such as indivdual contract values) have always been kept confidential in all but exceptional circumstances ......... because they are commercially sensitive.  Government contracts are let on a competitive tendering basis, and that requires a degree of confidentiality.  As has been said many many times in this thread, NDAs are part of normal day to day business - and will remain so.

High level expenditure (such as department budgets) as published. 

[aris]

It seems to me that the CPS paid him off in lieu of not admitting any guilt.  Sound familiar?

Certainly the lack of any moral outrage of this NDA by the usual suspects is resounding.

 

[stagboy]

As so often with corporate bullies, they think their HR policies should apply to everybody except them, and its only when they get publicly exposed that the ordinary employees get their say. Which begs the question|: what were Green's fellow directors doing? Didn't they know what was going on? How far did the cover up go?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/02/philip-green-allegations-its-not-banter-its-a-climate-of-fear-say-staff

 

[panoma1]

40 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Detailed Government expenditure (such as indivdual contract values) have always been kept confidential in all but exceptional circumstances ......... because they are commercially sensitive.  Government contracts are let on a competitive tendering basis, and that requires a degree of confidentiality.  As has been said many many times in this thread, NDAs are part of normal day to day business - and will remain so.

High level expenditure (such as department budgets) as published. 

As is, I would have thought obvious from my postings on this issue, I am not commenting on the use of NDA's for things such as commercially sensitive information, I'm commenting on the misuse of them, for example, to hide things of public interest from the public and/or to hide wrongdoing.

What has a public service, concealing from the public, the amount of public money they are paying out of the public purse, in order to buy off a person they have wronged? Got to do with keeping commercially sensitive information confidential?

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

Got to do with keeping commercially sensitive information confidential?

Any 'payoff' from government/government body or department or as a private 'out of court' settlement is normally confidential.  A mistake was made - those responsible have (it seems VERY reluctantly) admitted it - and compensation/recompense/pay off - whatever you like to call it has been paid.  I imagine the payee as well as the payor (in this case the Government) would regard the amount as confidential information.  Certainly the payor would not wish it to be used *** setting a precedent, and I imagine the payee would not wish details published of what 'value' he has accepted for compensation to his damaged reputation/image/career.

If he is no longer to be charged and is therefore 'not guilty', he should be allowed all possible privacy.  To have the press trumpeting that he made £XXX thousand from this whole matter is the last thing he should have to endure.  The whole idea that the public has 'a right to know' about people who are not to be charged is wrong.  If he is guilty - fine - but until them - privacy should be allowed.

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

Any 'payoff' from government/government body or department or as a private 'out of court' settlement is normally confidential.  A mistake was made - those responsible have (it seems VERY reluctantly) admitted it - and compensation/recompense/pay off - whatever you like to call it has been paid.  I imagine the payee as well as the payor (in this case the Government) would regard the amount as confidential information.  Certainly the payor would not wish it to be used *** setting a precedent, and I imagine the payee would not wish details published of what 'value' he has accepted for compensation to his damaged reputation/image/career.

If he is no longer to be charged and is therefore 'not guilty', he should be allowed all possible privacy.  To have the press trumpeting that he made £XXX thousand from this whole matter is the last thing he should have to endure.  The whole idea that the public has 'a right to know' about people who are not to be charged is wrong.  If he is guilty - fine - but until them - privacy should be allowed.

In this case It's not commercially sensitive information, and it involves public money! A public service should be accountable to us, the public, for every penny of public money they spend. If both party's "do a private deal" why should details not be disclosed to the people who pay...us, the public! You obviously don't care what a public service does with your money, and don't think they need to account for it.....I do and think they should!

As for the claimant, Is not the purpose of taking court action, to prove innocence and in so doing, restore damage to reputation/image? How does accepting a payoff with no acceptance of responsibility on behalf of the accusers, exonerate the claimant and restore any claimed damage to that reputation/image? In this case the CPS had conceded there was no case to answer, which went some way to exonerating the accused...it should be up to a court of law to decide, after hearing evidence, how much if any, compensation is appropriate for any damage to reputation/image/career etc,..........not for a public body to circumvent the courts and buy off a claimants complaint using public money or for that matter for a complainant to do so in selling their complaint!

 

 

[Newbie to this]

11 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

In this case It's not commercially sensitive information, and it involves public money! A public service should be accountable to us, the public, for every penny of public money they spend. If both party's "do a private deal" why should details not be disclosed to the people who pay...us, the public! You obviously don't care what a public service does with your money, and don't think they need to account for it.....I do and think they should!

As for the claimant, Is not the purpose of taking court action, to prove innocence and in so doing, restore damage to reputation/image? How does accepting a payoff with no acceptance of responsibility on behalf of the accusers, exonerate the claimant and restore any claimed damage to that reputation/image? In this case the CPS had conceded there was no case to answer, which went some way to exonerating the accused...it should be up to a court of law to decide, after hearing evidence, how much if any, compensation is appropriate for any damage to reputation/image/career etc,..........not for a public body to circumvent the courts and buy off a claimants complaint using public money or for that matter for a complainant to do so in selling their complaint!

 

 

Well said, there is too much unaccountability when it comes to public money. Every Penny should be accounted for and the reasons behind the spend made public.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Newbie to this

[JohnfromUK]

3 hours ago, panoma1 said:

If both party's "do a private deal" why should details not be disclosed to the people who pay...us, the public!

Because it is just that - a private deal.  It is paid for (presumably) by the CPS, who are funded by the government (either Home Office or Ministry of Justice, not sure which).  They have a budget set by the government, who answer to Parliament.  We do not see all detail of how departmental budgets are spent.

3 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Is not the purpose of taking court action, to prove innocence and in so doing,

No it is not: You are taken to court innocent until proved guilty.  That is how British justice works.  It isn't clear from the article whether the compensation was agreed in court, or out of court - but that would have been a compensation case .  The whole issue is that he was arrested in the full glare of publicity, kept on bail for a year, lost his job, then charges were dropped as the claims made against him seem to have been false.

Why should he have yet more public exposure when no one has been able to show he has done anything wrong?

3 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

the reasons behind the spend made public.

The reason is compensation paid for loss of reputation, inconvenience, legal fees etc due to false allegations.  The CPS should certainly have to account for this - but NOT by naming and detailing payments made to innocent individuals who they wrongly arrested and have been unable to make any case against.

By all means show something like "the CPS in 2018 paid compensation for XX cases amounting to a total of YY pounds."  I have no problem with the CPS being held up for their mistakes.  I have an objection to further publicity and exposure of innocent individuals against whom they have no case.  In this instance - this guy seems to have been falsely accused (as were other high profile figures) in a full blaze of publicity.  If the CPS cannot produce evidence that enables a court to find the people guilty, then they have to be presumed innocent - and as such should NOT be named and therefore shamed.

[aris]

So why all the fuss when Philip Green does the same thing?  With private money?  

[panoma1]

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Because it is just that - a private deal.  It is paid for (presumably) by the CPS, who are funded by the government (either Home Office or Ministry of Justice, not sure which)

 

Yes money handed out privately by the CPS, but not funded by the Government, nor the Home Office, nor the Ministry of Justice!.......Funded by us the public!...... but we're not allowed to know how much!

[KB1]

MEDIA, MEDIA, MEDIA.......  Again they get everyone at each others throats.

That stupid Anne Diamond was on some morning TV the other day, all but lynching the guy before any trial. But what was worse is that she suggested that 'The People' could send a clear message by boycotting all his stores!  I wonder if the daft cow stopped to think how many people she might have helped on their way to the Job Centre?

Our Media are equally, if not more responsible for the anarchy and chaos that we see escalating daily in this country.

 

[JohnfromUK]

9 hours ago, panoma1 said:

but not funded by the Government,

90% of the CPS income is from government voted by Parliament.  That money in turn comes from the Treasury - just like all government departments.  The remaining 10% comes from seizures, building rentals, and a host of other minor items.  Full details are published.  You can view them on line.

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

90% of the CPS income is from government voted by Parliament.  That money in turn comes from the Treasury - just like all government departments.  The remaining 10% comes from seizures, building rentals, and a host of other minor items.  Full details are published.  You can view them on line.

Yeah but where does the Government get the money? The Government has no money, it's TAX payer's money and as a TAX payer, I should be able to see how every penny is spent.

You are making the same mistake as the Government and it's departments do, by thinking it is their money. I'm not having a pop, it's the impression our civil service have been giving off for as long as I can remember, and they don’t think they should be accountable for how they spend it. But they should be!

Edited November 4, 2018 by Newbie to this

[stagboy]

Well said; the "government" has no money, only ours. And the interesting thing is that no civil servant in a culpable department ever seems to lose their job, let alone their index linked final salary scheme pension - which is, again, funded by taxpayers, most of whom can only dream of such schemes.

[Dekers]

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Yeah but where does the Government get the money? The Government has no money, it's TAX payer's money and as a TAX payer, I should be able to see how every penny is spent.

You are making the same mistake as the Government and it's departments do, by thinking it is their money. I'm not having a pop, it's the impression our civil service have been giving off for as long as I can remember, and they don’t think they should be accountable for how they spend it. But they should be!

 

1 hour ago, stagboy said:

Well said; the "government" has no money, only ours. And the interesting thing is that no civil servant in a culpable department ever seems to lose their job, let alone their index linked final salary scheme pension - which is, again, funded by taxpayers, most of whom can only dream of such schemes.

This thread has wondered as so often happens but the above 2 post reflect a situation that is commonly forgotten/ignored.....it's MY money!

[JohnfromUK]

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

and as a TAX payer, I should be able to see how every penny is spent.

I understand the sentiment ........ but realistically it isn't going to be practical ...... anymore than shareholders get to see every detail of the workings of companies they are financing.  You would need a great many more civil servants simply doing the admin and accounts.  If you think of the totals involved ........ you cannot realistically report every detail to every contributor/recipient.

 

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

by thinking it is their money.

When you pay tax, it becomes the treasuries money (no longer YOURS) - just as if you pay for anything it becomes the supplier/sellers money.  In return for our tax handed over - we get services, defence, health, education, police, justice, roads, pensions, foreign aid, MPs, civil servants.  You cannot 'opt out', but in fact you are 'buying' services.  We elect representatives (MP's) to sit in Parliament who supervise government - and spending and taxation is set in the budget - which is voted for and approved by Parliament before being put into law.

It is the way a government operated under a Parliamentary democracy works.  'Everyone' contributing (taxes) and pooling resources for providing services (health, education, defence, pensions etc.)  for 'everyone' is what a civilised society is about.  Accountability is to the elected representatives sitting in Parliament.

51 minutes ago, Dekers said:

This thread has wandered as so often happens

This is true ........ and I will refrain for taking further 'off topic'!

[Newbie to this]

12 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

just as if you pay for anything it becomes the supplier/sellers money.

This analogy just doesn't work, I don't have an option not to pay TAX where as if I buy something it's because I want to but I have an option not to buy it.

13 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Everyone' contributing (taxes)

Not 'Everyone' does contribute though.

[JohnfromUK]

Back on topic, this https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6350331/Self-promoting-TV-detective-obsessed-celebrity-sex-abusers-helped-police-ruin-lives.html

is why it is so important that the manes and details of people accused (such as Phillip Green) are not publicised until there is a case to come to court - where it will become public as court proceedings are usually public - but exceptionally names may be kept unknown (such as the case where Tommy Robinson got into trouble for contempt).

Allegations may ruin lives even if completely unfounded simply by becoming public.

[panoma1]

15 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Back on topic, this https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6350331/Self-promoting-TV-detective-obsessed-celebrity-sex-abusers-helped-police-ruin-lives.html

is why it is so important that the manes and details of people accused (such as Phillip Green) are not publicised until there is a case to come to court - where it will become public as court proceedings are usually public - but exceptionally names may be kept unknown (such as the case where Tommy Robinson got into trouble for contempt).

Allegations may ruin lives even if completely unfounded simply by becoming public.

I agree, but it's up to the courts, the police and the CPS to grant, enforce and preserve an accused individual's pre prosecution anonymity, not for the rich and powerful to buy that anonymity and try to avoid accountability by using a private NDA!.........Once they do so, they in my opinion, should lose all right to anonymity!

This why I feel the CPs should be made to publicly and fully account for their recent actions/conduct particularly relating to the use of public money and an NDA to buy off and silence an individual!

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

I agree, but it's up to the courts, the police and the CPS to grant, enforce and preserve an accused individual's pre prosecution anonymity

It is really up to the Police.  At the time the accusations were made - and were made public - it is unlikely that anything had reached the stage of coming before the CPS to consider a prosecution - and would not have reached court - as that doesn't happen until the CPS decides to go to court.  Initial handling of accusations and allegations is investigation by the police, who, if they feel there is a case to be brought will present the evidence to the CPS ........ who if they think there is a valid case will take it to court.

I agree that the CPS may apply to the court for the case to be held behind closed doors, or the judge may decide that is the best course.   In the case of both Phillip Green and Paul Gambaccini - it was publicised (in Greens case by Peter Haine) or prevented from publication (by NDA between him and the CPS in Gambaccini's case) before anything came to court. or anywhere near court - and that is where I see the injustice in Greens case, and the good sense in Gambaccini's case.

 

6 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

to buy off and silence an individual!

I rather think in Paul Gambaccini's case he didn't need his silence buying; I suspect he doesn't want the thing to drag on.  What he received was compensation for wrongful arrest and unsubstantiated allegations being published.  I suspect it is the CPS who wanted the privacy as they (and the police) have made a mess of the whole thing by acting on allegations that appear to be quite false.  As has been said many times in this thread an NDA is a non disclosure agreement.  The key being that it is agreed.

[Newbie to this]

35 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is really up to the Police.  At the time the accusations were made - and were made public - it is unlikely that anything had reached the stage of coming before the CPS to consider a prosecution - and would not have reached court - as that doesn't happen until the CPS decides to go to court.  Initial handling of accusations and allegations is investigation by the police, who, if they feel there is a case to be brought will present the evidence to the CPS ........ who if they think there is a valid case will take it to court.

I agree that the CPS may apply to the court for the case to be held behind closed doors, or the judge may decide that is the best course.   In the case of both Phillip Green and Paul Gambaccini - it was publicised (in Greens case by Peter Haine) or prevented from publication (by NDA between him and the CPS in Gambaccini's case) before anything came to court. or anywhere near court - and that is where I see the injustice in Greens case, and the good sense in Gambaccini's case.

 

I rather think in Paul Gambaccini's case he didn't need his silence buying; I suspect he doesn't want the thing to drag on.  What he received was compensation for wrongful arrest and unsubstantiated allegations being published.  I suspect it is the CPS who wanted the privacy as they (and the police) have made a mess of the whole thing by acting on allegations that appear to be quite false.  As has been said many times in this thread an NDA is a non disclosure agreement.  The key being that it is agreed.

But in the case of the CPS there shouldn't be the option of a NDA unless it is requested by the third party.

And if anything criminal has happened then no one should be able to use a NDA, and the solicitor being used for such a NDA should be obliged to report the criminal cover up.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Newbie to this

[JohnfromUK]

42 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

But in the case of the CPS there shouldn't be the option of a NDA unless it is requested by the third party.

In this instance (Paul Gambaccini) we don't know who requested it.

 

42 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

And if anything criminal has happened then no one should be able to use a NDA, and the solicitor being used for such a NDA should be obliged to report the criminal cover up.

No one can: An NDA cannot be used to 'hide' criminal activity anyway; Specifically, NDA's are not enforceable where criminal activity is involved.  As has been said many times in this thread, they are for commercial matters, personnel and employee data, trade secrets, company policies, privacy and financial matters.  An NDA is an agreement to which all parties agree.  If you don't agree with anything in the NDA, simple - you don't have to sign it.  When you are leaving employment (such as Phillip Green's accusers) you have to have (by law) independent legal advice about the terms and conditions of the NDA.  When I left a company, my legal adviser requested some changes - and these were agreed and included in the NDA - which I then signed.  It is usual that if you are offered a 'leaving package' over and above the statutory minimum, you will be asked to sign an NDA.  The details (financial and otherwise) of your leaving package will be covered by the NDA, as will matters of the employers business (of all types).

It would be entirely normal for someone with access to 'board level management information' in a company such as Phillip Green's to have an NDA and leaving package on leaving.  Standard practice for employees who have had access to information at board level.

What is very wrong is for someone to disclose information to the public (as Peter Haine did using parliamentary privilege ) before the court has decided whether that information should be made public.  The injunction withholding the information that included Green's name was granted temporary to allow the court time to hear all of the evidence/allegations and assess whether the privacy was valid.  It is very wrong to disclose matters that are before court until the court itself has made it's decision - and might prevent a proper case being able to be tried at some stage in the future.

Edited November 4, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is really up to the Police.  At the time the accusations were made - and were made public - it is unlikely that anything had reached the stage of coming before the CPS to consider a prosecution - and would not have reached court - as that doesn't happen until the CPS decides to go to court.  Initial handling of accusations and allegations is investigation by the police, who, if they feel there is a case to be brought will present the evidence to the CPS ........ who if they think there is a valid case will take it to court.

 

I would thought the police have a legal responsibility to preserve an individual's anonymity and keep allegations, subsequent investigations and evidence gathered confidential, prior to the CPS decision on whether to prosecute, as it is priveledged information. Any leaks of such privileged information could possibly breach data protection regulations and/or amount to misconduct in public office, which can, in certain circumstances be a criminal offence, it would then be up to the police to enforce the law in such circumstances. So yes! I think it is up to the police.

[Gordon R]

Quote

I would thought the police have a legal responsibility to preserve an individual's anonymity and keep allegations, subsequent investigations and evidence gathered confidential, prior to the CPS decision on whether to prosecute, as it is priveledged information. Any leaks of such privileged information could possibly breach data protection regulations and/or amount to misconduct in public office, which can, in certain circumstances be a criminal offence, it would then be up to the police to enforce the law in such circumstances. So yes! I think it is up to the police.

I think Cliff Richard might disagree.