Jump to content

Phillip Green


TIGHTCHOKE
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Out with the alleged behaviour of Phillip Green it remains the case that the U.K. has an independent Judiciary free of political inference. Three appeal court judges decided on the basis of law that there were grounds to grant an interim injunction until a full court case was heard. 

IMHO Lord Hain disabused the the role of Parliamentary Privilege by interfering with the judicial procedures of this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobba said:

Out with the alleged behaviour of Phillip Green it remains the case that the U.K. has an independent Judiciary free of political inference. Three appeal court judges decided on the basis of law that there were grounds to grant an interim injunction until a full court case was heard. 

IMHO Lord Hain disabused the the role of Parliamentary Privilege by interfering with the judicial procedures of this case.

Much as I dislike the attitude of Green, I have to agree that Hain has abused  parliamentary privilege. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobba said:

Out with the alleged behaviour of Phillip Green it remains the case that the U.K. has an independent Judiciary free of political inference. Three appeal court judges decided on the basis of law that there were grounds to grant an interim injunction until a full court case was heard. 

IMHO Lord Hain disabused the the role of Parliamentary Privilege by interfering with the judicial procedures of this case.

I have to agree. The argument 'in the public interest' is dangerous because it's used to justify just about anything. Why is it? I can't see what it is. My safety isn't in jeopardy, it's not going to affect my health or anything, so I don't see the problem. It MIGHT be in shareholders' interests for some companies, but that should be an issue only if he's found guilty. Tanking share prices based on accusation alone is irresponsible - even if the man is a weasel!

Hopefully all the accusations will be proved, he strikes me as a horrible, horrible man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Perhaps Lord Hain thought it was the right thing to do?

Exactly this ^^^^ 

 

1 hour ago, Bobba said:

Out with the alleged behaviour of Phillip Green it remains the case that the U.K. has an independent Judiciary free of political inference. Three appeal court judges decided on the basis of law that there were grounds to grant an interim injunction until a full court case was heard. 

IMHO Lord Hain disabused the the role of Parliamentary Privilege by interfering with the judicial procedures of this case.

Whilst I agree with the basic theory it's also true that if you have the money for the right lawyers, It's possible to get away with far more than an ordinary citizen would be able to. It should be the case that the privilege exists to denounce abuse of power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know what the fuss is about.

All "Settlement Agreements" in standard form contain gagging clauses which range from stopping the parties from being rude about each other, disclosing the terms of settlement or the "numbers" linked to settlement. These settlement agreements do not prohibit reporting criminal offences (they can't as a matter of public policy).

Someone has done a deal (without admission of liability), taken some money and the newspapers have found out and what to use it as an opportunity to give Mr. Green a kicking. Mr. Green has asked for an injunction stopping the newspapers from publishing details of what was a confidential commercial settlement between consenting and legal advised parties and that should be that.

Naming Mr. Green was an abuse of Parliamentary Privilege because just by naming him everyone jumps to incorrect conclusions before any form of trial or hearing (either civil or criminal) and so the reputational damage is done. If a whole host of target shoppers for Miss Selfridge, Dorothy Perkins etc stop shopping at those stores as part of some misinformed metoo witch hunt, then when those stores close everyone can give themselves a big pat on the back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to #MeToo - you are always guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.  Even if you are proven innocent, you are still guilty.  It is about time that any time an accuser has the right of anonymity - the accused should have the same right until convicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no time for Green and have no sympathy whatsoever, but it is interesting to contrast the views about him, with Coxen, who was in the Scottish rape case.

Coxen got a shedload of sympathy and Green has had the boot stuck in. "Let's not bother about a trial - he's guilty". Classic Pigeonwatch lynching party. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, the right thing to do is follow due process and wait for the Courts to do what they have to do.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it but there has to be rule of law and a process else the system will break as everyone makes it up as they go along and claims "it was the right thing to do" which of course is rather subjective and doesn't really give the other side / accused a fair shout / defence.

My guess is the Telegraph have something particularly salacious they want to get out on Sunday. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the MP knew the information had become available to plebs elsewhere in the world - so it was just a matter of time before much of the UK learned it anyway, and that other high profile businessmen had felt they needed to advise it wasn't them because so many may have thought it might be. There may have been pressure brought by them - I believe Lord Sugar had been active in the lords at about the same time, who knows, maybe he had a word with someone who had a word yada yada.

In any case, I'd assume a fat green person of such standing spends enough dosh with lawyers that they'd be on a retainer and he'd not have to pay any more for the gagging order process so did it just because he could.

Edited by Dave-G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not right when those with money can pay to cover accusations when the rest of us cannot. If you benefit from a public profile then you suffer the consequences of fame at the same time. Let the courts decide right and wrong in the normal way but if what is right for some of us to be named in accusations then it should be right for everyone else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, oowee said:

Its not right when those with money can pay to cover accusations when the rest of us cannot. If you benefit from a public profile then you suffer the consequences of fame at the same time. Let the courts decide right and wrong in the normal way but if what is right for some of us to be named in accusations then it should be right for everyone else.  

I believe the injunction was only temporary until the case reaches court. I don’t like Green but I do wonder if some people are jumping on the Me Too bandwagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I appreciate that gagging costs money, but I can't see why there is an outcry, as Green has used the law - he has not broken it.

I don't like him, but what exactly has he done?

That's the point! The public dont know what he's alleged to have done..........because he (again) allegedly, employed lawyers, bought people's silence with NDA's!............and sought an injunction through the courts!.........all this costs vast amounts of money! Why would he do that? 

 

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gordon R said:

He would do it because he could do it - within the law.  Why do the public have to know? If he has broken the law - let it take its course, rather than a lynch mob.

But why would he do it if he had nothing to hide? Unless a light is shone on legal manoeuvres/practices/loopholes that are only available to people with money and power? There will always be a two tier system of one law for the rich and powerful, and another for the ordinary person!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NDA’s were not signed under duress and did not prevent them from speaking to police.  NDA’s are a two way street protecting the privacy of both parties.  This has been denied to both thanks to Hain.

Read the link I posted above written by a barrister much more eloquently than I could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...