Phillip Green

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

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!

As I  said earlier, I don't know the facts of this case.  What I do know is that both NDAs and pay offs are standard stuff at more senior levels in business.

[hambone]

16 hours ago, Retsdon said:

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...

That is possibly the politest comment I have seen or heard about Peter Hain 😂😂😂

[aris]

Is it sexual harassment or sexual assault?  If the latter, it is a police matter and no NDA or gagging order can prevent the complainant from making a further charge.  I’m going to guess it was sexual harassment.  Basically the guy acted like a chauvinistic ****, and his employee made a complaint wanting to take him to tribunal.  Instead of everyone going through that process he offered them a mutually agreeable settlement as long as they signed a standard NDA.

Both parties made that choice voluntarily.  

Edited October 27, 2018 by aris

[panoma1]

48 minutes ago, aris said:

Is it sexual harassment or sexual assault?  If the latter, it is a police matter and no NDA or gagging order can prevent the complainant from making a further charge.  I’m going to guess it was sexual harassment.  Basically the guy acted like a chauvinistic ****, and his employee made a complaint wanting to take him to tribunal.  Instead of everyone going through that process he offered them a mutually agreeable settlement as long as they signed a standard NDA.

Both parties made that choice voluntarily.  

That just leaves the alleged racism then!

[aris]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

That just leaves the alleged racism then!

Again a tribunal issue.  Unlesss of course he got physical and racist - it could be classed as a hate crime.  But of course these are merely allegations.

Edited October 27, 2018 by aris

[TIGHTCHOKE]

An interesting development;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46006840

Only banter, so then why did he pay all the money to hide this banter?

[stagboy]

It's simple, really: Green paid up (using his shareholders money) in order to conceal his wrongdoing. An NDA is supposed to protect commercial confidentiality and may be part of a normal leaving procedure. Sometimes it is. But in many cases, such as Green's, it was being used repeatedly to conceal grotesque bullying of relatively junior staff (some of the most lurid accounts have emerged from Green's former PA). Such workplace harassment may be an offence, but it is difficult to prove in a legal forum when there is no equality of arms whatsoever. The company has big lawyers, lots of HR lackeys and of course other employees are too scared to come forward with corroborating evidence. Hence the NDA is rolled out to cover up the wrongdoing, and the perpetrator carries on, secure in the knowledge that he can always buy his way out of the legal consequences of his appalling behaviour. 

Edited October 28, 2018 by stagboy

[Yellow Bear]

You mean just like this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/27/labour-frontbencherused-taxpayers-money-gag-former-lover-aide/

[hambone]

8 minutes ago, stagboy said:

It's simple, really: Green paid up (using his shareholders money) in order to conceal his wrongdoing. An NDA is supposed to protect commercial confidentiality and may be part of a normal leaving procedure. Sometimes it is. But in many cases, such as Green's, it was being used repeatedly to conceal grotesque bullying of relatively junior staff (some of the most lurid accounts have emerged from Green's former PA). Such workplace harassment may be an offence, but it is difficult to prove in a legal forum when there is no equality of arms whatsoever. The company has big lawyers, lots of HR lackeys and of course other employees are too scared to come forward with corroborating evidence. Hence the NDA is rolled out to cover up the wrongdoing, and the perpetrator carries on, secure in the knowledge that he can always buy his way out of the legal consequences of his appalling behaviour. 

This is not just true of individuals like Green,  big companies do not pay a HR department for the good of their workers 

[stagboy]

1 minute ago, hambone said:

This is not just true of individuals like Green,  big companies do not pay a HR department for the good of their workers 

I couldn't agree more!

[norfolk dumpling]

Interesting that Nacy Dell'Olio is claiming Green offered her £1m for a quickie. His 'rap sheet' is starting to grow, not helped of course by being photographed hugging Weinstein. If ever there was a friendship you don't want to draw attention to that is the one.

[panoma1]

49 minutes ago, norfolk dumpling said:

Interesting that Nacy Dell'Olio is claiming Green offered her £1m for a quickie. His 'rap sheet' is starting to grow, not helped of course by being photographed hugging Weinstein. If ever there was a friendship you don't want to draw attention to that is the one.

If she claimed he offered her a quid it would be more believable!.....as for "wineburger" why not hug him? They allegedly have a lot in common!

[panoma1]

7 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

An interesting development;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46006840

Only banter, so then why did he pay all the money to hide this banter?

He admits he took part in "banter" but claims it wasn't offensive? I'm afraid it isn't what he considers is not offensive, it's what the recipient or anyone witnessing it finds offensive that matters! I think he may well have scored a home goal with that confession?

Edited October 28, 2018 by panoma1

[ditchman]

i wonder is he is related to Hughie Green....that would make him Bob Geldorfs uncle.............stranger things happen at sea you know..EDIT..paula yates uncle ..not Bobs yer uncle

i mean....look who that stiff Kashoggi was related to................its just so spooky

 

time for some more £4.99/bottle stuff

 

and ....could barbara windsor be princess marges secrete love child !!

Edited October 28, 2018 by ditchman

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

i wonder is he is related to Hughie Green....that would make him Bob Geldorfs uncle.............stranger things happen at sea you know..EDIT..paula yates uncle ..not Bobs yer uncle

i mean....look who that stiff Kashoggi was related to................its just so spooky

 

time for some more £4.99/bottle stuff

 

and ....could barbara windsor be princess marges secrete love child !!

I very much doubt it, Hughie Green was a very charitable Gentleman.

[ditchman]

1 minute ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I very much doubt it, Hughie Green was a very charitable Gentleman.

yes very charitable.............he gave his seed willingly to jess yates mrs...nes-pas..

[Mungler]

11 hours ago, norfolk dumpling said:

Interesting that Nacy Dell'Olio is claiming Green offered her £1m for a quickie. His 'rap sheet' is starting to grow, not helped of course by being photographed hugging Weinstein. If ever there was a friendship you don't want to draw attention to that is the one.

If Nancy D told me the sky was blue I’d stop and look up before believing her.

It strikes me that the press have the knives out for Green and you don’t think that someone as rich and famous as Green has rubbed shoulders with other rich / famous / powerful people? I’ll bet there’s a photo of him shaking Jimmy Saville’s hand somewhere but I wouldn’t take that as evidence he’s a nonce.

These NDAs are common place and they are used to protect against reputational damage - they are consensual, require all sides to take independent legal advice and they do not affect criminal prosecutions at all.

I have seen perfectly clean corporate / employer clients buy off and gag nuisances and problems. Indeed, nuisances and problems are ‘a numbers game’ - say 1 in 100 people maybe unhinged, weird, a bit nuts, damaged or downright trouble and a pain in the backside, and so if you employ 1,000 people you’ll have 10 on your books, 10,000 and it’s 100. Imagine someone griefy is looking at throwing some mud around - and here’s the key to most litigation and that is ‘the best lies are half truth and half fiction’. 

Say you say ‘good morning, nice weather we’re having’ to someone at work and you are seen speaking to that person. That person then says that you spoke to them and threatened them / said you wanted to touch their bottom etc.

The truth is there was a conversation but the lie comes in what was said or done. The lie however is out of the starting blocks and the is a runner because half of it is true.

Now I’m not saying that these people making allegations against Green are liars but I can see why he might throw money at aggravation - anyone involved in the litigation process will tell you that every piece of litigation has risk, unrecoverable cost / management time and grey hair attached to it and thus even a dispute you know you can fight and win, you may well throw money at to go away because that is what the cost benefit analysis says.

I read nothing into the confidentiality provisions of any settlement but what I do know is that the people signing up and taking the money did so if their own free will, with legal advice and with there being no admission of liability, and of course no one has independently been to the police.

Green is a hard nosed businessman and apparently quite unlikeable which is why he’s the next panto villain served up by the press and we’re now allowed to hate.

I see him as one of the last high street tycoons fighting a losing battle against amazon and when the press help him ‘do a Ratner’ and all his staff are out of work then everyone can be really pleased with the moral victory because it’s the right thing to do.

When did billionaire businessman have to be moral or pure? Again, I make the point we’re nowhere near a ‘criminal act’ in any of this.

[Gordon R]

Mungler - on the money.

[stagboy]

Bullying is not always a criminal offence - or readily provable even when it is, not least because witnesses are intimidated. But it is wrongdoing all the same. It can be very severe and the victim may be largely defenceless. The people Green was bullying were far, far junior to him and wouldn't have stood a chance in any legal confrontation, for obvious reasons.

All big companies have high-minded policies relating to bullying and strict official  for the offender: why should the people at the very top - be able to circumvent their own corporate policies (using shareholders money) while applying them to everybody else? Are rules only for "little people"?

NDAs do have valid uses, but they should not be used to conceal wrongdoing. Even more evidence about Green (and Bercow, and all the others in position of power who used NDAs improperly...) are coming now every day. It reminds me of the flood that broke re Jimmy Savile - "why didn't anybody speak up if everybody knew?" is the cry.

Remember the adage attributed to Burke "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing". 

Edited October 29, 2018 by stagboy

[Vince Green]

On ‎28‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 07:17, fister said:

Is the key word not ‘non disclosure’ AGREEMENT!

Exactly, they (whoever "they" are) accepted the payoffs and signed the paperwork. Whatever the facts, may or not be, the case is now tainted,

Edited October 29, 2018 by Vince Green

[panoma1]

If there is a criminal offence involved, does covering it up by buying people off or accepting a payoff, constitute perverting the course of justice?

[Vince Green]

3 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

If there is a criminal offence involved, does covering it up by buying people off or accepting a payoff, constitute perverting the course of justice?

They don't have to take the payoff, if they do they are saying they there is no criminal offence involved because they tacitly have agreed to what was said or done. 

[stagboy]

Green at a select committee hearing. One has to wonder how he behaves on his own turf, behind closed doors, with subordinates.

 

 

[Dekers]

I've not read all of this thread, but Peter Hain is an idiot, where does this stop?

Nothing has been proved, right or wrong, and love him or hate him, it is not down to Peter Hain to use Parliamentary privilege to spread rumors about Phillip Green!  

Where are the police, courts etc, it is not down to Parliament, and especially Peter Hain, a Kenyan born, South African refugee who has thrust his views on this country since his arrival to take this step.

 

[aris]

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....

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by aris