Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TIGHTCHOKE

Phillip Green

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

There will always be a two tier system of one law for the rich and powerful, and another for the ordinary person!

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Yellow Bear said:

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

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

+1

I'll reluctantly agree with that considering the people who took his money in exchange for non disclosures have just as shamefully breached their contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, aris said:

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.

Duress can be! "Hey little man! You can have a shed load of dosh if you agree to keep shtum" the alternative is "whatever the cost, my expensive legal team will drag you all the way through the court system, ruin you and your family financially, and if I win you will be liable for costs"........no surprise many give in and take the money and run!

When someone makes an allegation of misconduct, harassment, racism etc against another, to third parties, in doing so, it's reasonable to assume they willingly relinquish their privacy/anonymity! When they sign a NDA and take the money......it's reasonably to assume they have either got what they wanted or have "bottled it"

An NDA protects the "privacy" of those that can afford to buy one! It only protects the victims "privacy" by not revealing how much dosh it took to buy them off!

But I agree Hain cynically circumvented the law in using his parliamentary privilege! His motive is anyone's guess at the moment?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Duress can be! "Hey little man! You can have a shed load of dosh if you agree to keep shtum" the alternative is "whatever the cost, my expensive legal team will drag you all the way through the court system, ruin you and your family financially, and if I win you will be liable for costs"........no surprise many give in and take the money and run!

When someone makes an allegation of misconduct, harassment, racism etc against another, to third parties, in doing so, it's reasonable to assume they willingly relinquish their privacy/anonymity! When they sign a NDA and take the money......it's reasonably to assume they have either got what they wanted or have "bottled it"

An NDA protects the "privacy" of those that can afford to buy one! It only protects the victims "privacy" by not revealing how much dosh it took to buy them off!

This is not correct.  NDA’s are a two way street.  You have a grievance against someone, you settle it.  In this case with a financial settlement.  NDA’s are signed with independent legal advice on both sides.  Please read this:

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/what-lord-peter-hain-didnt-consider-when-he-rushed-to-name-name-philip-green/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hain now claims he didn’t know the lawyers who he is paid to advise were representing the Telegraph. No, of course you didn’t. 

Don’t know who’s the biggest scumbag Hain or Green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did Hain rush to make his announcement? Why did he not wait to see whether the injunction was confirmed? It stinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Why did Hain rush to make his announcement? Why did he not wait to see whether the injunction was confirmed? It stinks.

Hain has always been a self-publicising egotist. Like you, I don't care for Green - I think he's a wrong 'un. But I can't help feeling that Hain is bordering on the abuse of Parliamentary privilege with this business. Regardless of whether the injunction should have been granted, it was granted, and using parliamentary privilege to render it worthless is treading dangerous ground IMHO...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Hain has always been a self-publicising egotist. Like you, I don't care for Green

+1

He has a record of conflict with the judiciary and faced a contempt of court charge in 2012, which was later dropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, aris said:

This is not correct.  NDA’s are a two way street.  You have a grievance against someone, you settle it.  In this case with a financial settlement.  NDA’s are signed with independent legal advice on both sides.  Please read this:

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/what-lord-peter-hain-didnt-consider-when-he-rushed-to-name-name-philip-green/

 

I had already read it aris, my posting about "gagging" agreements is bourne out of some experience....I have seen the subtle bullying, veiled threats and intimidation, even with legal representation, your solicitor is duty bound to inform/advise an accuser of the possible "consequences" if you fail and/or decline to do this or that or the other!

I don't support the use of NDA's because it lets the rich and powerful (those that can afford it) off the hook, and on the other hand opens the door for unscrupulous people to bring accusations against another party, purely for a big payday!

If someone has done something wrong they should face the music, equally, if someone makes allegations that someone has done something wrong they should be required to stand by and prove it!.....that is the basis of our legal system.........not if you have enough power and wealth, you can buy your way out of justice....or on the other hand, if you have something on someone you can use it as a lever for them to buy your silence, by squeezing money out of them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

you can buy your way out of justice

An NDA does not prevent someone giving evidence to a court.  It is there to protect proprietary information (e.g. customer lists, privacy, financial information, product information etc.)  It is overriden if evidence is required by a court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

An NDA does not prevent someone giving evidence to a court.  It is there to protect proprietary information (e.g. customer lists, privacy, financial information, product information etc.)  It is overriden if evidence is required by a court.

I understand that to be the case in a court of law, but justice is also dispensed in other places, for example an industrial tribunal!..... if an agreement is reached between the parties, which may include a financial settlement and an NDA, the case is concluded before a decision is reached, and the tribunal requires no further evidence to be presented....is that not a defendant buying their way out of justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

I understand that to be the case in a court of law, but justice is also dispensed in other places, for example an industrial tribunal!..... if an agreement is reached between the parties, which may include a financial settlement and an NDA, the case is concluded before a decision is reached, and the tribunal requires no further evidence to be presented....is that not a defendant buying their way out of justice?

I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but I have signed NDAs when leaving employment.  It is quite normal procedure where you have had access to proprietary and 'business' information. 

I had legal advice (paid for at a solicitor by the employer requesting I signed the NDA) and my understanding is that it would NOT remove any legal rights I had in a tribunal, court, or any other formal procedure/body/court.  I'm not sure if that was relating to the particular NDA I signed, or is general for NDAs.

The purpose is not to 'gag' the signatory or restrict their rights, but to protect proprietary and 'business' information typically from disclosure to a competitor (e.g. the next employer), but also to the press, pressure groups, and others who might wish to use the information to the detriment of the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but I have signed NDAs when leaving employment.  It is quite normal procedure where you have had access to proprietary and 'business' information. 

I had legal advice (paid for at a solicitor by the employer requesting I signed the NDA) and my understanding is that it would NOT remove any legal rights I had in a tribunal, court, or any other formal procedure/body/court.  I'm not sure if that was relating to the particular NDA I signed, or is general for NDAs.

The purpose is not to 'gag' the signatory or restrict their rights, but to protect proprietary and 'business' information typically from disclosure to a competitor (e.g. the next employer), but also to the press, pressure groups, and others who might wish to use the information to the detriment of the company.

It seems there are uses and misuses of NDA's.....I was commenting on the morality of the use (misuse?) by a wealthy individual of NDA's in order to avoid accountability for, as yet unknown allegations, made by an as yet unknown complainant of personal abuses/indiscretions perpetrated by that individual, who's name is now in the public domain...........not their use to protect things such as business information!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, panoma1 said:

It seems there are uses and misuses of NDA's.....I was commenting on the morality of the use (misuse?) by a wealthy individual of NDA's in order to avoid accountability for, as yet unknown allegations, made by an as yet unknown complainant of personal abuses/indiscretions perpetrated by that individual, who's name is now in the public domain...........not their use to protect things such as business information!

 

Well, I don't know what is in the NDAs in the Phillip Green case, but it seems to me that the complainants would be quite entitled to talk to the police/authorities/their lawyers, but not the press or public.  I think that in general, that is right.  I agree it is a 'difficult one' in this case for two reasons;

Firstly Phillip Green' is not popular after various BHS matters where he seems to have been (at best) very greedy and unfair.  That is likely to bias 'public opinion' against him.

Secondly, any allegations - until investigated and if necessary brought to a trial in court, should not be aired in the press for a 'trial by public opinion'. 

It is always possible that the allegations are untrue and brought by past employees disgruntled at being dismissed.  Think of the recent cases of Cliff Richard, Ted Heath, Leon Britttan, Field Marshall Lord Brammall etc, where allegations were publicised and afterwards it seems were untrue.  An awful lot of distress was caused and it would (in my opinion) have been much better handled privately until such time as court proceedings were launched.

My understanding in this case was that the injunction broken by Hain was temporary whilst investigations were in progress.  One assumes that if nothing had been found, it may have  been confirmed, or if court proceedings were initiated, it would have been lifted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that seems perfectly reasonable, but........the public reaction is not about what he has or hasn't done, the public reaction is about the fact that he used his wealth and a NDA to avoid accountability for what he has or hasn't done! Whereas an ordinary person couldn't afford to do that!

I support any individual's right to anonymity until a decision is made as to whether to prosecute or not.....but not if someone uses an NDA and pays an accuser/potential witness to keep quiet!

So I think both he and Hain are equally guilty of abusing their privileged positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

the public reaction is not about what he has or hasn't done, the public reaction is about the fact that he used his wealth and a NDA to avoid accountability for what he has or hasn't done!

I would expect that anyone in his employment with access to 'company data' would be expected to sign an NDA on leaving.  I can't comment on whether it was done to 'avoid accountability' because I have no idea if that is the case, but that is not why it is normally done.

If people were making allegations about Green which he claims are false, it would seem quite normal for his lawyers to seek and injunction from publication until they are investigated.  Because he is 'in the public eye', bad press coverage can seriously affect not just him personally, but all of his businesses, shareholders and employees, so to seek an injunction temporarily seems right.  The court could always refuse the injunction if they felt it was not justified, but they didn't, so they must think it is right.

39 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Whereas an ordinary person couldn't afford to do that!

I have no wish to defend Green, but his circumstances are different to an 'ordinary person'.  An 'ordinary person would not be making the national press, or waking the slumbers of members of the House of Lords if they had similar allegations made against them.  In fact it probably wouldn't be known outside the immediate circle of those involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a nutshell - Green is guilty of being rich. I can't stand the man, but he has used his wealth to try and avoid bad press, via a legal process. Just what is wrong with that?

If this action results in a boycott of his business and people are thrown out of work - do you think employees will thank Hain for his public service?

They will have no job, whilst he still has a Knighthood and millions.

I can't get away from the difference in treatment of Coxen and Green . One is guilty of rape and gets sympathy. The other is an odious individual, who might or might not have done anything at all, who gets a slating.

Bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I would expect that anyone in his employment with access to 'company data' would be expected to sign an NDA on leaving.  I can't comment on whether it was done to 'avoid accountability' because I have no idea if that is the case, but that is not why it is normally done.

If people were making allegations about Green which he claims are false, it would seem quite normal for his lawyers to seek and injunction from publication until they are investigated.  Because he is 'in the public eye', bad press coverage can seriously affect not just him personally, but all of his businesses, shareholders and employees, so to seek an injunction temporarily seems right.  The court could always refuse the injunction if they felt it was not justified, but they didn't, so they must think it is right.

I have no wish to defend Green, but his circumstances are different to an 'ordinary person'.  An 'ordinary person would not be making the national press, or waking the slumbers of members of the House of Lords if they had similar allegations made against them.  In fact it probably wouldn't be known outside the immediate circle of those involved.

Though they appear to be personal allegations against him, we will have to wait and see what those allegations are, which we will, only if it is deemed for whatever reason, he needs to account for his alleged indiscretions? Or if Hain decides to reveal this under parliamentary privilege! It is perfectly reasonable that anyone should seek a temporary injunction pending the outcome of any investigation, that is not in dispute! It is the use of a NDA and the payment of money to his accusers (prior to seeking an injunction) in order to keep the matter quiet that is in question.

The requirement to be accountable is the same for him as for everyone else's! Assuming the allegations are against him personally, his wealth, status and business interests have nothing to do with it, and don't negate his accountability, any effect adverse publicity has on these are his responsibility and his alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

 

 

30 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

In a nutshell - Green is guilty of being rich. I can't stand the man, but he has used his wealth to try and avoid bad press, via a legal process. Just what is wrong with that?

If this action results in a boycott of his business and people are thrown out of work - do you think employees will thank Hain for his public service?

They will have no job, whilst he still has a Knighthood and millions.

I can't get away from the difference in treatment of Coxen and Green . One is guilty of rape and gets sympathy. The other is an odious individual, who might or might not have done anything at all, who gets a slating.

Bizarre.

Using a legal process (injunction) to avoid bad press is one thing, using a legal process (NDA and payoff) if it is an attempt to avoid accountability is another!....it will be interesting to find out which one it was!

Edited by panoma1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

It is the use of a NDA and the payment of money

We don't know the full circumstances. 

As I have said, an NDA is normal practice - NOT a gagging order.

Also, when someone leaves a senior position (and I am assuming if they were in direct contact with Green, they would be in a reasonably senior post), it is quite normal for there to be a 'payoff'.  Often senior people have long contracts that are 'bought out' and receive 'compensation packages' for severance.  These can be high value - especially if there are share options and bonuses to 'buy out'.  They are paid sometimes as 'discretionary' in that management elect to make the payment such as in lieu of notice, 'statutory' (as in redundancy payments) or contractual - in that there may be a severance terms clause in the contract of employment. 

Do we know that what was paid to Green's accusers wasn't simply some of the above?  The idea that he was 'buying their silence' is by no means proven.

I am not supporting Green, but the combination of the Telegraph and Hain's actions have everyone suggesting that he tried to 'buy silence' and enforce 'gagging orders'.  That may or may not be the case and I think we need to await the facts before we assume he is guilty of that.  As to any alleged wrong doings - again, we don't have the facts and need to see what (if anything) comes out of the investigations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparantly the NDA is nothing to do with business practices such as management payoffs, payment in lieu of notice, compensation packages, statutory redundancy, buying out of contract etc, etc, It is claimed by and published in the media that the allegations against Mr Green are of a sexual harassment and racist nature!

If this is so? As I said previously, the injunction is one thing.....the NDA with and cash payment to his accusers is something else entirely!

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...