BS: 'Sir' Philip Green

Subject: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 26 Oct 18 - 03:16 PM

What more need be said? He has plumbed the depths, and just when you think he cannot go lower, he does. Well done Peter Hain.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Mossback
Date: 26 Oct 18 - 03:49 PM

Hell, I thought you were talking about the Sherlock Holmes character.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Raedwulf
Date: 26 Oct 18 - 04:17 PM

Oh really? Hain decides that he knows better than 3 senior judges who deal with the law day in, day out, and you applaud him for willy-nilly overturning the rule of said law (or the interpretation of it, at least). I, for one, cannot see any justification for Hain's declaration of "in the public interest". Except his own self-interest. What difference does it make to me, you, or anyone else that a name is now public? It doesn't help any inquiry into Green's ALLEGED misdeeds, does it?

And then there's that - {Green} has plumbed the depths, and... etc. Says who? Says you? I remember your name from other threads. I am left of centre in my politics. But you, sunshine, are a socialist bigot. SPG (what an unfortunate set of initials) is a shifty piece of work at best. As far as I can see. But, me? I'll wait for the law to decide. Except that doesn't suit your agenda, does it? There is no evidence in the public domain, yet oh so quick to rush to judgement & to condemn, aren't you? No evidence, but he's a Tory, he's a Sir, he's got some dodgy looking stuff in his history, so he must be fucking guilty, eh?

Nasty little man you are...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 18 - 07:13 PM

Silly, silly, Raedwulf (as you can often be). What we don't want is a system that protects the rich/famous/knights/etc. just because they are rich/famous/knights,etc. If the Daily Mail goes for your jugular, well, that's fine innit. But when a Labour politician exposes a scandal, well that's not right, yeah? You're not left of centre at all, as your posts routinely reveal. You're on the establishment side, big time. And that's an analysis, not a bunch of insults of the kind you've levelled at David.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 18 - 07:26 PM

Errrrmmmm....if he's 'categorically and wholly' innocent of the offences he's been accused of, why did he feel the need to enter into NDAs with his accusers and pay them off with large sums of money (using, presumably, their own money which he'd stolen from their pensions), and take out injunctions to prevent the publication of those accusations?

The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. No smoke without fire. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Oct 18 - 07:45 PM

Silly, silly, Raedwulf (as you can often be). What we don't want is a system that protects the rich/famous/knights/etc. just because they are rich/famous/knights,etc. If the Daily Mail goes for your jugular, well, that's fine innit. But when a Labour politician exposes a scandal, well that's not right, yeah? You're not left of centre at all, as your posts routinely reveal. You're on the establishment side, big time. And that's an analysis, not a bunch of insults of the kind you've levelled at David.

'Working class envy' rears its ugly head.
As a 'boss' (and a knight)Sir Philip Green is assumed (by some) as guilty until proven innocent, under your scheme.
I have never understood the idea that you can name someone who's being accused of something before the law has taken its course.
Many men accused of rape have had their 'fair names' dragged through the mud, only for accusations to later be proved to be false. Unfortunately, 'mud sticks'.
If Philip Green is proved to be guilty of those things which are said against him, I will join with those who condemn him, but English (British) law has a presumption of innocence. This is all already before the courts. Let the law take its course before deciding (currently with absolutely no evidence) exactly who is guilty of anything.

Peter Hain took advantage of 'parliamentary privilege'. Whether he was right to do so, time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Oct 18 - 07:56 PM

Fair rule of thumb... "folks don't get to be billionaires by being nice people"...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 03:34 AM

You have 2 choices in this world, wallow in the socialist trough of the public sector, or work for a successful businessman, who may be yourself or a billionaire.

Nice to see the politics of envy rear its ugly head on this thread.

I do not mind occasional Parliamentary privilege being used in the Commons to name names, I do have a problem with unelected members of the Lords claiming the same rights. This claimed right is in need of review.

The Rt Hon. The Lord Hain is not exactly squeaky clean himself.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 03:42 AM

Those who leap so gallantly to the defence of this character might pause to read the very first article on the front page of the Guardian website this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 03:43 AM

Predictable, Nigel. Peter Hain isn't a judge or jury and this revelation has nothing to do at this stage with any judicial process. If you've stolen my sweets in the playground I'm not under any obligation to keep silent about it. I'm going to tell all my mates that you've been thieving, as well as my class teacher, who I hope would start a "judicial process" to get him punished. Of course, that would be compromised should my mates and I give him a good roughing up. That's the way the world goes round. Your accusation of working-class envy is a ridiculous slur, especially in light of the fact that I've never been considered to be working-class since I started teaching in 1973.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 03:50 AM

So, Iains, next time you need any treatment in hospital you could remind the nurses that they are wallowing in the socialist trough of the public sector. Be sure to do it just before they come round with your meds.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 03:51 AM

Thats interesting Steve, I consider myself working class, even though the jobs I have held have been traditionally middle class. But my grandfather and at least five generations before him were coal miners, so I think that makes me working class.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 03:56 AM

Sir Philip Green is to lodge formal complaint against Lord Hain who outed the billionaire in Parliament as lawyers accused the Labour peer of a 'shameless assault' on rule of law

Ex-minister Lord Hain used Parliamentary privilege to unmask Sir Philip Green
It has emerged Lord Hain works for law firm involved in the injunction case
    The peer denied knowing of the link before he named billionaire in the

AsI said previously not so squeaky clean

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 04:03 AM

Now pay attention kiddies!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tXBC-71aZs

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 04:05 AM

You are applying a different standard to Peter Hain than you are to Philip Green.

I've never really bothered much about what I should call meself, David. I certainly come from a working-class background, but are teachers, with their professional qualifications, working class? I neither know nor care!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 04:14 AM

You are applying a different standard to Peter Hain than you are to Philip Green.


Yes, it is called abuse of parliamentary privilege.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 04:43 AM

There have been calls for a complete overhaul of the NDA system, and I agree with that. There is a perfectly valid role for NDA in protecting intellectual property rights. There is also a role in protecting other commercially sensitive material, for instance if a current contract is under review.

They should have no role in covering up potentially criminal activity either by the company or individuals within it.

Personally, I have no problem with Peter Hain, or any member of either House, using Parliamentary privilege in breaking an NDA set up for that apparent purpose. I would if, for example, he used it to breach an NDA that exposed commercial information.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 05:04 AM

The company I worked for for thirteen years until my retirement routinely entered into NDAs with departing employees - with a financial reward from the company in order to secure the ex-employee's discretion over commercial and technical information. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

However, NDAs and financial pay-offs in order to ensure the silence of a victim of an immoral and/or criminal act is tantamount to blackmail-in-reverse. I despair at the perverse psyche of those who believe that such agreements are acceptable. Shameless arseholes.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 05:04 AM

There is a problem balancing the people's right to know against a slur on the character of the accused that sticks (The no smoke without fire mantra)

Those unfortunates accused of rape and subsequently cleared being prime examples.
    Where that balance should lie is a matter for only Parliament to decide. There is a presumption of innocence until proved guilty in English law.

Not proven is a concept of Scottish Law only. Putting names and accusations in the public arena leaves a permanent taint of not proven.
This is known as the bastard verdict.

and not without cause!

Essentially putting names in the public arena generates the equivalent of a bastard verdict before there is even a trial. Furthermore there is no mechanism of adequate redress.

Certain of those posting on this forum give plentiful examples.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 05:20 AM

There is a problem balancing the people's right to know against a slur on the character of the accused that sticks (The no smoke without fire mantra)

Those unfortunates accused of rape and subsequently cleared being prime examples.

I entirely agree, Iains. But those cases also need to be weighed against the Jimmy Savilles who get away with criminal activity because the accusations are not heard.

In the end, it must always be a matter of judgement, not following a hard rule. And sometimes people will get it wrong.

In this case, my opinion is that Hain got it right, but my opinion is all it is.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 05:32 AM

But those cases also need to be weighed against the Jimmy Savilles who get away with criminal activity because the accusations are not heard.

The only problem with that is that many public figures have been subjected to very public accusations, later found to have no substance.
The person Nick springs to mind.
At the very least I would like to see privacy maintained until the case has sufficient grounds to be active in a court of law.

How many people have been publicly humiliated by what are later seen to be victim of false accusations.

The rumours still abound concerning Kincora and the Haut de la Garenne orphanage

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 05:38 AM

Good for Hain, Green deserves to have his knob cut off!!! The 3 judges are idiots - good for Hain.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 05:43 AM

As we both agree, it is difficult. But some crimes - and sexual abuse and bully are prime examples - are very prone to repeated offenses. So while each occurrence may be just between the accused and the purported victim, there may be many instances of that accused with different purported victims. Waiting until it goes to trial fails, precisely because the NDA hampers the police in finding the other potential victims and therefore building the case. True, the police know the accursed. But they are unable to call for other potential victims to come forward without indicting who the accused might be.

There are no easy solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 05:44 AM

The accused. The accursed was an interesting autotext 'correction'.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 05:49 AM

"At the very least I would like to see privacy maintained until the case has sufficient grounds to be active in a court of law."

And I suspect most fair-minded people, and I include myself here, would agree with that.

So, why shouldn't the right to such privacy be available to everyone accused of such offences - in other words, by virtue of statute - rather than continue with the current situation where it is reserved for those whom a judge believes are of sufficiently lofty social standing and/or have the financial resources?

Sauce for the goose, etc. And, of course, if every potential defendant in this kind of case was afforded anonymity as a matter of course by law, the invitation to assume - automatically in many (most?) people's minds - that people like Green have something to hide - wouldn't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 05:51 AM

The greater British Public and probably most other places automatically regard the accused as the accursed. Therein lies the problem.
Whose rights are paramount?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 06:04 AM

Whose rights are paramount?

Good question. Should whether you can afford seven figure payoffs affect the answer?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 06:18 AM

I do not know the answer to the question, but does an NDA buy permanent anonymity or just stall until eventual disclosure in court?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 06:25 AM

If enough collaborating evidence exists that the case could be brought, but the NDA prevents it being found, it buys permanent anonymity.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 06:34 AM

DMcG You may well be right, but presumably the only reason for seeking an NDA is because someone is digging. Disclosure may well help, or perhaps hinder an ongoing investigation.
There are no simple yes/no answers.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 09:05 AM

From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 03:42 AM
Those who leap so gallantly to the defence of this character might pause to read the very first article on the front page of the Guardian website this morning.

I would suggest you re-read the posts before yours. None of them defend the character of Philip Green. They only call for him to receive the same protection that the laws should offer to all.

Depending on the wording of the NDA, it may even provide circumstantial evidence of inappropriate behaviour. But that is not for us to guess. Let the law take its course.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 09:18 AM

It doesn't seem to have been widely noticed that this was a temporary injunction, to allow time for the allegations to be properly considered. It would be for the later hearing to decide whether it should remain permanent. Hain's intervention has circumvented the proper legal process, and he is rightly being criticised for this. He also claimed to be revealing the "truth", when the fact is that the allegations have still to be proved true. Green may have shown himself to be a thoroughly nasty piece of work, but he is still entitled to proper legal process.

These allegations would have been made in the course of an employment dispute, not criminal charges, and it is very common for these to be settled by agreement to avoid the cost and inconvenience to both parties of going to an Employment Tribunal. It also brings certainty. However a settlement would be pointless if the complainant could still make their allegations, hence NDAs. If they don't like it, or if the parties can't agree terms, they can take their chance at the tribunal.

NDA's can't be used to prevent events being reported to the proper regulatory bodies or the police.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 09:36 AM

You are of course entitled to disagree, Howard, but I think I took full account of those points.   It is at least arguable that the allegations cannot be fully considered in isolation: how widespread the alleged behaviour is matters, and an NDA interferes with that. So keeping the name hidden until the trial is itself manipulating justice. Equally that the police know the accused does not in itself help find other possible victims.


As we keep saying, there are no easy answers.

I found Nigel's comment Depending on the wording of the NDA, it may even provide circumstantial evidence of inappropriate behaviour intriguing. Let us assume the lawyers writing the NDA were not crazy enough to write "I agree not to talk about the time you assaulted me." They would write something suitably bland and non-controversial but suitably encompassing, surely?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 10:16 AM

Silly, silly, Raedwulf (as you can often be). Of course, you never are. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you're perfect...

I am left of centre, Steve, (only mildly overall, but still left of centre). What you want to believe I don't give a damn about. You're a lot further left than me. Which perhaps explains why your bias leads you to declare that I'm not. Be that as it may. There is no justification that I can see for Hain's action in overturning a judicial decision. And Carter is just nasty, plain & simple. there's no justification for him rushing to judgement or making this post.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 10:35 AM

With respect, I think you're confusing the NDA with the injunction.

An NDA comes at the end of a negotiation, where the parties have agreed to settle a civil dispute rather than go to a court or tribunal, and have agreed to keep it confidential. It is a contractual agreement made between them and is intended to settle the matter once and for all. They are broadly useful and usually uncontroversial, although there are concerns that they may be misused in some circumstances. No one is compelled to sign an NDA, but most will agree to do so in return for the certainty of a negotiated settlement rather than face the costs and uncertainty of a hearing.

The injunction was imposed by a court on journalists to prevent allegations of misconduct being revealed. These allegations were possibly made by people who had previously agreed not to make these public and who had accepted large sums to do so. Since the whole point was to keep these confidential, it would defeat the claims of justice to report them before the court had the opportunity to consider them. It would then be up to the court to decide whether Green should continue to remain anonymous.

Remember, these are civil claims, not criminal charges. The alleged sexual harassment may or may not cross the line into criminal behaviour, but that would be for a different court and a different process. Legally an NDA cannot be used to prevent criminal behaviour being reported to the police.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 12:39 PM

Could a kindly Mudelf please correct the spelling error in the thread-title. It should be 'Cur'.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 01:09 PM

"Yes, it is called abuse of parliamentary privilege."
That is yet to be proven - so far Hain has been criticised by the Tories, other MPs have supported his courageous actions
The accusation has been made on a technicality, that Hain did not disclose his FORMER connections with the TORY Daily Telegraph who's story of Green' behavior has been silenced.
Hain says he had no information on the Telegraph story - it remains to be seen whether he did
Hain did no wrong in exposing this bullying thug - he entitled to do so as an MP - a duty, in fact
Lovely film clip of blustering green striking on on the interviewers this morning - his behaviour is certainly in line with what he hs been accused of

It's lice to see the old-boys network scurrying about protecting one of their own - he's not the first GREEN to be found fondling and groping - wonder if they're related - those on top leapt to his defence too !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 01:30 PM

A Conservative woman's view of PHIL THE GENT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 01:31 PM

"Yes, it is called abuse of parliamentary privilege."

I refer you to my post:
From: Iains - PM
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 03:56 AM

The accusation has been made on a technicality, that Hain did not disclose his FORMER connections with the TORY Daily Telegraph who's story of Green' behavior has been silenced.
Don't fink so!
The following. courtesy of good old guido:

https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/10/lord-hain-is-paid-adviser-to-law-firm-that-represented-the-telegraph-in-sir-philip-green-inju

Lord Hain, the peer who named Sir Philip Green as the #MeToo scandal businessman, is listed as a “remunerated” adviser to Gordon Dadds, the law firm that represented The Telegraph in the Sir Philip Green injunction case.

The revelation adds a new angle to the constitutional row that Hain sparked yesterday when he used parliamentary privilege to break the injunction imposed by the Court of Appeal preventing the naming of Green.

Those observing the recent events may find it rather troubling that a peer with the power to trump the courts can at the same time hold a paid-for gig with a law firm acting in a case.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 02:31 PM

It must be sooo tough for old rich powerful folks to keep track
of all their advisory consultant positions and sinecures...

..and their memories aren't getting any better as they get older...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 02:43 PM

"Don't fink so!"
'fraid so - the television news has covered it all day and Hain has been interviewed stating his position
Your "yesterdays" blog by a very partisan right-wing blogger - is just that - an extremist, right-wing blog
I'm afraid today's BBC and RTE news reports (uo to one-and-a-half hours ago) tke precedence in my book - Your "Goido" blog is yesterday's news - at odds with how things now stand

Your concern for the letter of the law and free speech rings somewhat hollow next to your passing around an extremist petition demanding that a fascist thug be freed from prison for attempting to influence a lawfully-conducted trial
It seems the only time the law becomes sacrosanct is when it suits your own politics
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 03:58 PM

"next to your passing around an extremist petition demanding that a fascist thug be freed from prison for attempting to influence a lawfully-conducted trial"

You do talk some utter nonsense. And a little aside. All trials are lawfully conducted otherwise they become mistrials.

"It seems the only time the law becomes sacrosanct is when it suits your own politics"

I assume you were looking in a mirror when you said the above.

I am in favour of the rule of law, as I have stated many times. However I can find many examples where you wish to bend it for your own nefarious reasons. Would you like me to find some for you? for example "compulsory requisitioning of property"

I do not think you really understand the arguments. The matter was before the courts for a temporary banning order. This unsurprisingly is a very different beastie to a permanent order. Hain in his supreme arrogance decided the judiciary should not decide the outcome of this temporary order. He preempted this.

As middle England Malvern Gazette states:
" Lord Hain named Sir Philip in the Lords as being the individual behind a legal injunction preventing the Daily Telegraph from publishing “confidential information” from five employees.

Sir Philip said he would complain to the Lords authorities that Lord Hain failed to disclose he had a financial relationship with the Telegraph’s lawyers.

He said: “When Lord Hain made allegations about me in the House of Lords … he failed to disclose that he has a financial relationship with the law firm, Gordon Dadds, who represent the Telegraph.

“I have been advised that his actions are likely to have been a breach of the House of Lords Code of Conduct. As many people have said Lord Hain’s blatant disregard of a judgment made by three senior judges is outrageous.

“If he hadn’t read the judgment, on what basis was he apparently talking about it. If he had, Gordon Dadds’ name is on the front page.

“I will be lodging formal complaints with the relevant authorities in the House of Lords.”

The above further complicates the use of Parliamentary priviledge and argues a very good case for the abuse of such priviledge. As a former attorney general Dominic Grieve QC said Lord Hain’s behaviour had been “clearly arrogant” and he had abused parliamentary privilege in deciding he knew better than the courts.

I would posit he knows considerably more about the law and Parliamentary priviledge than Mr Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 04:51 PM

Jim:Hain says he had no information on the Telegraph story - it remains to be seen whether he did
Hain did no wrong in exposing this bullying thug - he entitled to do so as an MP - a duty, in fact

Peter Hain is a member of the House of Lords. He has no duties as an MP.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Oct 18 - 07:14 PM

"You do talk some utter nonsense."
Nope - it's archived
"I assume you were looking in a mirror when you said the above."

I have no breif for party politics and certainly not peter Hain but I do recot]gnise an attempted suppression of the crimes and misdemeanors of the great and the good - who wouldn't, it's happened often enough
Ho many times has the PM had to stand up and say "I have full confidence in....." whichever shitbag has pawed his staff or dodged taxes claimed expenses for duck palaces   
You answered the question perfectly on the 'above the law" thread when you made it clear that, as far as you are concerned it was those who could afford to be
Justice in Britain depends on who can afford the best lawyer - it always has
Whenever one of these pricks gets caught with their hands in a till or up a skirt, you people run around like blue-arsed poodles defending them - let a half decent politician be accused of something by scummy criminal bloggers like Paul Staines and the rope's over the nearest branch
Suck-holing the establishment seems second nature to the right

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 03:11 AM

" let a half decent politician be accused of something by scummy criminal bloggers like Paul Staines and the rope's over the nearest branch"

If you made the slightest effort to follow the argument you would see that the article Guido referred to was by legal check.com It was not Guido making the claims - he was quoting a source that made the claims. A source I clearly linked to!
If you wish to play a game of petty point scoring you really must pay attention, otherwise you look a fool.

All Hains has done is create a kangeroo court and usurped proceedings in the Crown Court.

It also needs to be pointed out that MPs and press and the public are wrongly assuming an NDA is an admission of guilt which it is not. They are often used as a practical way of quickly resolving without admission of guilt something that could go on for years in a court

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 03:21 AM

Peter Hain is a member of the Upper House. Whether you or I think that the membership of the upper house is determined correctly is neither here nor there. Formally he is in fact a Lord of Parliament. And he is entitled to do this as a Lord of Parliament, just as he would be if he was a mere Member of Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 03:37 AM

That is no excuse for sloppy research confusing the two.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 03:49 AM

I don't care Iains
Whatever Staines had misused, - he is untrustworthy and partisan and his arguments are out of date
I see no sign of Hain's argument in his BLOGS

Whenever something like this has been raised the establishment has covered it up. the culprit has used money and power to prevent action against it and an army of cap-doffers have sprung into action to defend it
Heath and the Dolphin Square rapists, Savile, Weinstein Green number one and the Westminster predators, and now Green number two
It has taken a great deal of effort on the part of women to defend themselves against the dangers of abuse by the wealthy, powerful and privileged.
As you people are very fond of arguing when the police are given excessive powers like 'stop-and-search' - if Green is innocent of what he is being accused of he has nothing to lose by us knowing his name.
He is a notorious bully, proven by past and present public behaviour
It's about time you cap-doffers startered doffing your caps on behalf of those really vulnerable]
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 03:50 AM

The rationale of an NDA is there is something that the originator does not want disclosed.    "Avoiding admitting guilt" is different to "Being not guikty".

Now the thing need not be criminal, or even just not socially acceptable. But even if it is just a dispute, there is something.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 04:10 AM

Don't forget Cyril Smith Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 04:45 AM

I don't care Iains
Whatever Staines had misused, - he is untrustworthy and partisan and his arguments are out of date

He did not write the article you silly man - he linked to it.

Even the Guardian is non partisan in its coverage. This must be a first:

When the issue last erupted in 2011, over the granting of so-called superinjunctions, the then lord chief justice, Lord Judge, observed: “It is, of course, wonderful for you if a member of parliament stands up in parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.

“But you do need to think whether it’s a good idea for our lawmakers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or they disagree with the privacy law created by parliament.”

Senior judges have in the past held talks with the Speakers of the Commons and the Lords about such incidents. After the superinjunction crisis, no action was taken because the dispute appeared to have gone away.

On Wednesday, ministers announced a consultation on the use of non-disclosure agreements in employment disputes. The role of MPs and peers in challenging court secrecy may also have to be revisited.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 04:48 AM

I read the outdated article
Attempting to use it now without the backing staterments is misusing it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 04:57 AM

You ate ususially quite happy to dismiss the Guardian as leftie shit until you can use it
AS THE GUARDIIAN IS SO IMPORTANT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 07:26 AM

THIS is the nearest we can get to of exactly what Green is being accused of - how about dealing with them instead supporting the attempts by the great and the good to suppres it?
JJim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 07:57 AM

It is very difficult to discuss this without appearing to support Green, which is certainly not my intention.

This discussion appears to be muddied by confusion between civil and criminal law. These are not criminal allegations (yet). I think what the court would probably look at is whether the information the Telegraph intended to publish was from sources covered by NDAs. If so, that would mean that someone who has voluntarily entered into a settlement which includes a confidentiality agreement and has accepted what is possibly a large sum of money had gone on to breach that confidentiality. That would be a breach of contract, as well as being dishonest. If so, then revealing Green's name before that case can be heard has undermined the course of justice.

It can be argued with good reason that the parties to an NDA are not in comparable positions, and that someone who has lost their job and has bills to pay cannot afford to turn down a large sum of money on a point of principle, which a large corporation can easily afford. However that discussion is already taking place, across a much wider spectrum than Green's alleged behaviour, and pressure is increasing to prevent NDAs being used in these circumstances. It was not necessary to breach a court injunction and name Green in order to pursue that debate.

Parliamentary privilege is an important right which allows parliamentarians to discuss issues freely. It should not be used simply because an individual member disagrees with something. Hain's actions do not advance the wider debate about NDAs and his intention really seems to be to embarass Green. While it is not difficult to sympathise with that objective, it is not a proper use of parliamentary privilege.

As for Green, his reputation is already fairly thoroughly trashed, and further allegations of bullying and sexual harassment are emerging, and would have done so without this particular incident.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 08:12 AM

One of the facts being discussed is that women members of Gree's staff were forced to sign non- disclosure agreements over his behaviour towards them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 08:20 AM

It would be nice if we could make that clear distinction, Howard, but I don't think we can. The civil-law NDA is, according to some, preventing investigation into criminal offences. Equally the injunction was preventing this being reported. If a victim decides to take money rather than press charges in a particular case makes prosecuting more difficult but does not alter whether a crime has been committed or not one iota.

And that matters because if this is a repeat offence the signatories of the NDA are not the only people to consider.

I repeat what I said above: I see no easy answers to these problems when they arise. I certainly don't think "the right response" can be codified.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 09:33 AM

Well as a matter of fact I have first-hand experience of non-disclosure agreements. I signed one myself a number of years ago, undertaking not to tell anyone that a certain major company had paid me a considerable sum of money to compensate me for their very poor behaviour over several months, during construction work they were carrying out, which had made it almost impossible at times for us to get to and from our house. The only access road had been dug up and turned into an impassible battlefield, yet they ignored my repeated requests to provide me with at least reasonable temporary access. I kept records of all my dealings with them and took lots of photos and videos to show how bad things had been. This was not a matter that ever went into the hands of legal eagles, though the two quasi-mafiosi who came to my house to do the deal probably suspected that the company's name would be mud around here if their behaviour became common knowledge (I didn't threaten them, but they were impressed, taken aback even, by my meticulous record-keeping). It's like that in Bude, which is a bit of a goldfish bowl. The NDA was clearly intended to prevent similar victims of their unreasonable behaviour in the area from finding out that they could also have the prospect of claiming compensation. I regarded that as unfair, and I took the money and ignored the NDA, though I didn't exactly megaphone the thing around town. You may regard that as immoral, but it was not anything like as immoral as leaving a remote house without proper access for weeks on end in midwinter for us, the postman, LPG deliveries (we almost ran out of gas over Christmas), and, potentially, emergency services. The NDA was intended to preserve a reputation that didn't deserve to be preserved. Pick the bones out of that lot.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 09:52 AM

Am I alone in thinking that some posters are here decrying the fact that Green has been named in the house of Lords by Hain are the very same posters who seemed quite happy that Labour Party members were named in the debacle over anti-semitism despite the fact that no evidence had been given in any court of law.

Dual standards ........ most definitely.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 10:12 AM

"Dual standards "
Goes with the territory, it seems
The Court decision tojail Tommy Robinson doesn't appear to hold much water with them either - diff'rent strokes for diff'rent blokes rules ok it seems
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 10:24 AM

The distinction between civil and legal procedings does matter, because they are very different processes with very different outcomes. Yes, there are concerns that NDAs could deter people from going to the police, but those concerns had already been raised before this matter, and pressure is growing to ensure that this does not happen in future. Hain's grandstanding has added nothing to that debate.

Raggytash's point about claims of anti-semitism in the Labour Party misses the point, because these were not the subject of a court injunction. But suppose they had been? Suppose those accused had gone to court, and had been given an injunction to prevent them from being named while the case was being prepared so the evidence could be properly examined? Suppose a Tory MP or peer had then used parliamentary privilege to name them anyway? They would quite rightly be criticised for abusing that privilege for purely political purposes. I don't see anything different in what Hain did.

I don't mind in the least that Green has been embarrassed or made to look even more odious than he already did. I do mind that justice is sidelined and legal processes undermined to make a political point.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 11:56 AM

A very rich and powerful man pays people millions to shut them up about his sexual indiscretions (yes I didn't say alleged and yes indiscretions is probably a euphemism - there's balance for you!), and some of you blokes choose to bash the whistleblower instead. You couldn't make it up. What's up with you!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 01:29 PM

What's up with you!

This:

https://inforrm.org/2018/10/27/lord-hain-and-privilege-when-power-wealth-and-abuse-combine-to-subvert-the-rule-of-law-paul-wragg

"

The House of Lords adopted a resolution on sub judice on 11 May 2000. The resolution, as amended, is as follows:
“That, subject to the discretion of the Lord Speaker, and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice:
(1) Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question. …
(b) (i) Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance.
(ii) Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding.
(c) Appellate proceedings, whether criminal or civil, are active from the time when they are commenced by application for leave to appeal or by notice of appeal until ended by judgment or discontinuance.”

I wonder where that leaves Lord Hain?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 01:44 PM

Still nothing about the man, his character and the crimes we now know he has been accused of - it is totally immaterial that his money has failed to cover them up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 01:44 PM

Because of the manner and the timing of the whistleblowing. The courts usually hear these cases fairly quickly, because of the risk of leaks. There was no real need to identify Green now, except to embarrass him (but he seems fairly impervious to public opinion) and to put Hain in the spotlight.

If the court were to decide in favour of the Telegraph then Green's identity would have emerged anyway, and quite soon. If not, and the court had made the injunction permanent, then Hain might arguably have had more justification for naming him under parliamentary privilege, given the other controversies surrounding him and the pressure to remove his knighthood. It could then be argued that the public interest overrides a private contract, but at least the court would have had a chance to decide.

Why does this matter? The rule of law is the only protection the rest of us have against the rich and powerful. Admittedly it is imperfect, and lawyers are expensive so the rich hold an advantage, but it's all we've got. I happen to think that's more important than whether Green is further embarrassed now or in a few days' time.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 01:50 PM

Howard Jones. You rightly highlight the principles of law at stake.
Others seem more interested in character assassination and applauding the dubious actions of the whistle blower.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 02:40 PM

"dubious actions of the whistle blower."
Only dubious when the character being exposed is of the "Great and Good"
Whistle-blowing is the only way we get to know what shits the bunch in charge are
one effect it has had here it to move Green's defence from "all lies" to "I was only engaged in banter"
He's already exposed himself as a liar - more to come, no doubt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 02:47 PM

Well we will have to see if the "illustrious" Hains escapes without censure will we not?

You must be the only person in Christendom that ranks Green amongst the great and the good! Never mind! I notice the main issue totally escapes you-again!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 02:57 PM

"Hains escapes without censure will we not?"
Just as we will have to see if Gopey Green gets away with his 'little weaknesses' (as Dylan Thomas described them)
An innocent man doesn't force his women employees to sign non-disclosure contracts if he has nothing to hide
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/philip-green-injunction-nda-parliamentary-privilege-sir-sexual-harassment-racism-a8601581.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 03:20 PM

Somebody here doesn't know what "sub judice" means. An injunction is not a process. There is no judicial process going on here. No charges, no trial, no jury. Once that gets under way, sure, we all have to shut up, including Peter Hain. Sub judice applies when the process is under way. But it isn't. And, once again: here we have a man who has clearly got so much to hide that he's paid millions of pounds out to shut people up. You stiffly po-faced defenders of this already-proven charlatan are utterly incomprehensible. You appear to have no interest in exposing bad people. You'd rather cling to your faux-technicalities. In fact, you're all wrong. Peter Hain didn't abuse parliamentary privilege. He USED parliamentary privilege, and you don't like it because he's a bit of a leftie (not much, actually). I'll be watching for your reaction when the Daily Mail next does something similar to a sexually naughty boy, but to a leftie instead of a big, powerful establishment man. That'll be very interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 04:37 PM

The world according to the well educated scientist/ex teacher/union activist shaw:
Peter Hain didn't abuse parliamentary privilege. He USED parliamentary privilege,

By contrast. The world according to former attorney general Dominic Grieve QC who said: Lord Hain’s behaviour had been “clearly arrogant” and he had abused parliamentary privilege in deciding he knew better than the courts.

Now who do we suppose knows a thing or two about the situation as opposed to an amateur that thinks he does?


Somebody here doesn't know what "sub judice" means.
you are quite correct Shaw you obviously do not. Hains exploited a power which frustrated the independence of the judiciary in an ongoing case;(Sub Judice) undermining the court.

I leave it to specialists in law to argue the merits, but I think the ayes have it to be sub judice

https://www.insider.co.uk/special-reports/sir-philip-green-lord-hain-13488994
" The principle of parliamentary privilege is at odds with the “sub judice” rule. This rule is meant to balance freedom of speech with freedom or responsibility; and to prevent MPs or Members of the House of Lords from referring to a current or impending court cases in parliament.

According to a Commons Library briefing, this rule is subject to the discretion of the Speaker, and is balanced against the right of parliament to discuss any matter it sees fit.

In this case, Lord Hain said the matter was in the public interest and the “felt it was his duty” to identify the party involved. Ultimately this will be a matter hotly in debate over the next few weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 05:27 PM

Looks like Corbyn and Labour have jumped on the Green NDA bandwagon


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6325761/Labour-forced-dozens-members-staff-sign-controversial-gagging-orders.html

As jim said:"An innocent man doesn't force his employees to sign non-disclosure contracts if he has nothing to hide."

So what do you suppose Labour is hiding?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 05:31 PM

Breaking news from Guido: The (Labour)party is using legal deals it has previously condemned to stop ex-employees discussing sexual and racist bullying


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d93cf110-da19-11e8-9dc6-a299178189bc

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 05:53 PM

There is no ongoing case. Therefore sub judice can't be invoked. Your responses to what I said are completely unfocused. Your insults have been noted and will be passed on. You deserve nothing less.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 07:41 PM

From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 05:53 PM

There is no ongoing case. Therefore sub judice can't be invoked. Your responses to what I said are completely unfocused. Your insults have been noted and will be passed on. You deserve nothing less.
There is a 'case going on'. (or recently finished). It relates to whether an NDA can be enforced.

I cannot, in all conscience, accept arguments regarding the validity of contracts from someone (Steve Shaw) who has stated, quite clearly, that he entered into an NDA contract, and then ignored it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 08:45 PM

Then you are suffering from a severely deflected conscience. You are pitting an aggrieved householder, wronged and ignored, against a powerful multinational who rode roughshod. No wonder you support Green. At least you're consistent, I suppose. Consistently sanctimonious.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 08:49 PM

And there is no ongoing case to which the principle of sub judice may be applied.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 02:54 AM

Here's how it works. Someone gets wind that a newspaper is going to publish something about them, probably because it has approached them for a comment. They apply to court to stop publication, on the grounds that the information was obtained in breach of a confidentiality agreement. However it takes time for both sides to prepare their cases and for court time to be allocated, so in the meantime the judge grants a temporary injunction to prevent publication until the case can be heard.

I don't know whether the legal proceedings are still going ahead, there would seem little point now the information is in the public domain. However when Hain made his statement a case was due to be heard, and the matter was then sub judice.

One of the possible outcomes of a court hearing is that the court, or a subsequent appeal court, might have advanced the law by deciding that NDAs cannot be used to silence allegations of this nature. Hain's intervention may have prevented that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 03:10 AM

I also have also signed NDAs many times as a condition of employment as a consultant. Having a modicum of integrity I feel myself bound by them and consider them to be enduring.

Pointing out your mistakes Shaw is hardly insulting you. Believe me if I wished to waste my time on such pastimes there would be no confusion

As to sub judice I refer you again to :
https://inforrm.org/2018/10/27/lord-hain-and-privilege-when-power-wealth-and-abuse-combine-to-subvert-the-rule-of-law-paul-wragg
within my post of
From: Iains - PM
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 01:29 PM
Personally I would take the House of Lords definition of what comprises matters bound by sub judice, rather the the meanderings of an ignorant amateur, who freely admits his contempt for the law. If your word is worthless, wherein lies the merit of your views?
The law protects such people as Green and Tommy Robinson. But equally they, like everyone else are shackled or constrained by the same laws.
The action of Hain subverts the law.

The only alternative in the world of shaw, where laws are ignored when it suits, is anarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 03:43 AM

"So what do you suppose Labour is hiding?"
This is about Green abusing women and making racist comments in the press=ence of his staff - what has Labour to do with this
As I said, innocent people do not make their staff sign Non Disclosure agreements, as the Independent article pointed out when it called into question the proinciple of such agreements

"where laws are ignored when it suits, is anarchy."
The cry of every repressive regime when it introduces repressive measures
If a Government refuses to be answerable to its electorate as this one has, we rely on a healthy opposition to its secretive behaviour an for that we rely on the assistance of whistleblowers letting us know what they are up to

Why do you rush to the support of these peoplel - Robinson, Trump, now this this piece of shit (rhetorical question, of course) !!!
JImm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 04:09 AM

"what has Labour to do with this
As I said, innocent people do not make their staff sign Non Disclosure agreements,

I refer you to my post From: Iains - PM
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 05:31 PM
Where the Times points out that the Labour party is using legal deals it has previously condemned to stop ex-employees discussing sexual and racist bullying.

Well 'pon my soul! Could labour be guilty of the same alleged sins as Green?
Tis in the Times. You know it must be right. Does hypocrisy know no bounds?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 04:41 AM

"Well 'pon my soul! Could labour be guilty of the same alleged sins as Green?"
Labour has not applied for an injunction to silence reports of bullying,
Bullying is rife throughout Parliament, it has been widely publicisd throughout the press and has been reported THROUGHOUT THE PRESS - Tory women have made exactly the same accusation and no attempt has been made to cover it up since these revelations emerged
Wherever it happens it is evil - Parliament is being foced to tackle it
YOU ARE DEFENDING IT BY SUPPORTING THE FACT THAT IN THIS CASE IT HAS BEEN SILENCED
Whataboutism has no place in these arguments other than to indicate that those using it know damn well that it is happening
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 04:55 AM

Sez Jim:

"This is about Green abusing women and making racist comments in the press=ence of his staff...As I said, innocent people do not make their staff sign Non Disclosure agreements..."

Absolutely spot-on. I wonder what Green's defenders on this forum find so difficult about this.

And if I got naughty, I couldn't offer non-disclosure agreements because I have no money. Green can do it because he is rich and powerful and can afford to pay armies of lawyers. Peter Hain has done a magnificent job for the victims of bullying and sexual harassment. All power to his elbow.

(And he's never been one of my favourites...)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 05:04 AM

Jim says "As I said, innocent people do not make their staff sign Non Disclosure agreements"

It seems to be assumed that these are hush payments made to complainants to stop them going to the police with criminal allegations. An NDA which attempted to do this would probably not be enforceable. I suspect it is more likely that these are normal employment disputes. It is common to settle these by negotiation, with no admission of liability. For the employer, this avoids tying up a lot of time and resources dealing with an Employment Tribunal hearing, and for the employee it avoids the cost and uncertainty of such a hearing and the possible difficulty of proving their allegations to the required standard of proof. NDAs are a normal part of this and form part of the standard wording of most settlement agreements. It is often reasonable to have such a provision and I suspect is often put in and agreed without very much disagreement by either party. Don't take the existence of an NDA as an admission of guilt.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 05:10 AM

But you haven't explained why they aren't just "agreements" instead of "non-disclosure agreements." You are avoiding the whole crux of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 05:24 AM

Whatever the truth about the uses of NDAs, they are being dealt with by all the main parties - both Corbyn and May have openly stated that they intend to ban them
Parliament and business are traditionally dominated by men and in many cases, have become stamping grounds for sexual predators - old boy's clubs
By bringing the problem out in the open is a certain way of stopping predatory behaviour - legal gagging orders are only going to keep things as they are
Screaming for the heads of whistleblowers is going to do exactly the same
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 05:40 AM

"Well 'pon my soul! Could labour be guilty of the same alleged sins as Green?" Yes. Can you not read?
Labour has not applied for an injunction to silence reports of bullying, Because as yet no person has attempted to divulge details of numerous Labour party NDAs

Is your apparent confusion between an NDA and an injunction concerning an NDA deliberate or simply that you do not understand?

The sun 21 hours ago.
Labour uses NDAs to gag its own staff on such subjects which include harassment, bullying and anti-Semitism, The ... Jeremy Corbyn's party signs NDAs with former staff ... to maintain the confidentiality of private information obtained during their employment    (hmmmmm!!)

Deflection on whataboutism merely tries to hide that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The law applies equally to all(though liquidity may help)

NDAS do pose a problem though. Although such agreements are voided by criminal activity it is far more difficult to assess the impact of
coercion and intimidation on those bound by such agreements.

The court of appeal granted a temporary injunction on Tuesday and the case was to go forward in the High Court. This is now questionable in the light of the premature disclosure. Hains, by his abuse of privilege, has probably aborted any chance of the courts clarifying the use and abuse of non disclosure agreements. Events both in the UK and overseas clearly demonstrate the urgent need for these devices to be thoroughly reviewed and clarified, perhaps by both the judiciary and the legislature arms of government. This is now thought unlikely to happen. Ta very much Hains!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 05:52 AM

The NDA in itself is an innocent device. It is what it is used for that creates problems. To maintain commercial secrecy is one thing, to thwart the exposure the peccadilloes(or worse) of public figures is another.
A detailed analysis of where the balance should lie is a discussion yet to be had.
Few have a problem accepting the official secrets act(another gagging device)
D notices have had a mixed reception.
NDAs cover an umbrella of circumstances and situations. The discussion to be had is how big should the souwester be that replaces it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 05:53 AM

This from an fascinating post-Hain article on the man Iain's is desperately defending, from The Independent
The full article is well worth a read
Jim Carroll

#MeToo and bullying allegations
Earlier this week, Sir Philip was granted an injunction preventing the Daily Telegraph from revealing what is described as “bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment” allegations made against a businessman which it was unable to name.
The newspaper said he had hired a team of lawyers and spent almost £500,000 in legal fees to persuade the Court of Appeal to gag the media from disclosing the allegations against him.
But for Sir Philip, his temporary anonymity came to a sudden end after the intervention of Lord Hain.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/who-is-philip-green-sexual-harassment-injunction-parliament-topshop-privacy-a8601466.html

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 06:08 AM

This from an fascinating post-Hain article on the man Iain's is desperately defending, from The Independent

stop trying to provoke and read, assimilate and understand what has been posted previously.

The law is what the law is. Sometimes it is an ass. Bitching about,or in some cases ignoring it(like certain posters)achieves zilch.
Only the legislature can change the law, the judiciary interpret it.
Protest can influence the legislature positively or negatively.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 06:59 AM

"The law is what the law is"
Corruptible you mean ? I'm sure you don't
The article details how much was spent buying the injunction, which puts justice out of reach of most of us
Now the lid has been lifted on this roten example of privilege, more accusations of Green groping and attempting to buy sex from women employees I'll put the full Times article up later, but a quotable quote from a reluctant seducee is, "He pawed at my wrist and told me, "If you come with me now to my apartment, this night will be worth a million".
Any law that attempts to cover up that behaviour isn't worth shit
Stop defending these predators and stop hiding behind the law to do so
Ho have shown by your attitude to labour Party accusations and your defending a racist thug that to you, the law is only important when it suits your own view of the world
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 07:04 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 08:45 PM
Then you are suffering from a severely deflected conscience. You are pitting an aggrieved householder, wronged and ignored, against a powerful multinational who rode roughshod. No wonder you support Green. At least you're consistent, I suppose. Consistently sanctimonious.

If you'd discussed it with your neighbours first, and tried for a 'class action' you might all have got a payout. Instead you acted alone, and got a payout in return for signing an NDA. To then go on to ignore the NDA, and discuss it with your neighbours makes it possible for them to also consider taking action, and costing the 'multinational' even more.
I think it better to be considered sanctimonious than a self-confessed liar.
And if you had always intended to share the information, then signing the NDA to get a payout was obtaining money by false pretences, better known as fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 07:22 AM

To then go on to ignore the NDA, and discuss it with your neighbours makes it possible for them to also consider taking action, perhaps mentioning to the company they know you got compensated because you told them while openly admitting to breaching the NDA.

At which point you risk being taken to court by the said company and losing a lot more money than they gave you. That's a dangerous game you are playing, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 07:26 AM

NDAs are often the only way a victim can obtain justice especially if they are unable to afford to take a matter to court
Calling such a victim a "self-confesed liar" for still feeling aggrieved is disgusting, and very typical of the worst aspects of right-wing Toryism

THERESA MAY ON NDAs
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 08:20 AM

THE INCREASING USE OF NDAs

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 08:22 AM

glimpsed a picture of Cur PG & Have Winestain laughing and joking together. Well suited, when you read some of the reports - both are bullies in their business dealings as well. Leopards and spots and all that.

The justification for, basically, making a mockery of the law, is that there is an injustice where rich people can buy off the judiciary. But it has to be said, he should be innocent until proven guilty, and he has bought the (alleged) victims' silence with considerable sums it is reported. Not that I would feel an ounce of sympathy with the guy. He has screwed a lot of his former employees.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 12:06 PM

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has issued a warning notice reminding law firms that non-disclosure agreements must never be misused as a way of covering up sexual misconduct in the workplace.(Published UK on 29-Mar-2018)

As a matter of law, NDAs cannot be used to prevent the victim from making protected disclosures to relevant bodies. The warning notice highlights that:

    NDAs should never be used to improperly threaten litigation or other adverse consequences.
    Law firms could face harsh disciplinary action if they use NDAs to prevent or deter victims from reporting allegations of sexual misconduct to the SRA, other relevant regulatory bodies or the police.

The SolicitorsRegulation Authority recognises that NDAs have a legitimate role, but the warning notice warns that they should not be drafted improperly so as to prevent or deter the victim from reporting the matter to a relevant regulatory body or, if it is a criminal matter, the police. NDAs are legally binding and any breach is actionable by an employer on the basis of a breach of contract potentially leading to damages or injunctive relief. Unfortunately, it appears that many employers have been using NDAs in settlement agreements so that financial compensation is offered as “hush money” to avoid significant reputational damage relating to the alleged sexual misconduct.
When used in this manner they can act as a deterrent so that victims of sexual harassment never come forward and report the matter, because they misinterpret NDAs to mean that they need to keep quiet at all costs or be sued for not doing so and risk losing all or part of the financial compensation in the process.

To me this seems typical solicitor speak. Another interpretation suggests that if the NDA is hiding criminal activity it is void anyway
No doubt the lawyers thrive on such confusion as it prints money for them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 12:30 PM

Er, Nigel, my very few neighbours are all farmers with big tractors, 4x4s and quad bikes and didn't give a stuff about the dug-up lane, they stood to gain from the work being done, and yes, I did discuss the whole thing fully with them as the construction works were ongoing. I, on the other hand, with my G-reg Nissan Micra was far more vulnerable. The company in question knew full well that I was the only one complaining or likely to complain, which is precisely why they thought they could get away with treating me, a minority of one, so shabbily (which they eventually admitted). As I stated in my original post, I didn't exactly megaphone the thing around town. For your benefit, I'll be a bit more precise: this affair took place in 2002. The first time I mentioned it to any of my very few neighbours was late last year when I told the old farmer, now retired, about it, and we had a good laugh. It's true that I didn't feel bound by a signature that was designed to protect a negligent company from embarrassment and I'm holding to that; the amount they paid to me represented their getting away very lightly, and we fully deserved to be compensated with no strings attached. I suppose that, had I crowed about it at the time, they'd have wanted their money back. But they won't be fretting sleeplessly in their beds tonight. You see, Nige, I didn't tell you everything about the incident, and I still haven't told you everything, but you still rushed to judgement and even managed, disappointingly, to get Mr McGlade onside. It would help if you refrained from calling non-liars liars, by the way. You do appear to be a bitter fellow. Have a nice cup of tea and a Penguin is my advice.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 12:34 PM

The "solicitor speak" referred to in the post just before mine reads like perfectly simple and clear English to me. Must be my excellent education, I suppose, a phenomenon regularly referred to here.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 12:51 PM

"The "solicitor speak" referred to in the post just before mine reads like perfectly simple and clear English to me. Must be my excellent education, I suppose,"

Perhaps the pedant is correct, but I would hazard a guess he has had limited dealings with the legal profession and knows not of what they are capable.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 12:53 PM

even managed, disappointingly, to get Mr McGlade onside. 


Not really, Steve. All I meant was that the way you described it sounded as if you were risking the company coming down hard on you. If you are confident that can't happen, well and good, but law - especially in the hands of the rich and powerful - needs to be handled carefully. It is not always a matter if who is right and wrong, but who can get burned most.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 01:29 PM

I did say that I hardly megaphoned it around the place. It's simply that I considered the NDA to be an unfair contract. I'd also add that Mrs Steve knew exactly what was going on every step of the way but was not a signatory to the agreement. She was out at work when the quasi-mafiosi visited. Didn't sign it, not bound by it, but knew everything. Bit of a farce really. Wonder whether the partners of Green's victims were in that position!

Bit shabby, these NDAs, aren't they? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 02:06 PM

If you considered it an unfair contract why did you sign it. I assume no coercion was exerted by the other party. Was it purely for financial gain. Was there a time limit on the agreement or was it enduring?
It hardly paints you in any kind of favourable light now does it?
Was this not a case of you boasting how you put one over on big business, taking their 30 pieces of silver and later reneging on the NDA? Hardly something a person of integrity and any kind of respect for the law would want to admit to.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 02:54 PM

MAKE USE OF NDCd
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 04:16 PM

In truth Iains Steve has kept to his side of the agreement. You or I, nor anyone else, knows the name of the company he dealt with.

He has kept his side of the "bargain"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 05:08 PM

Well that's right. Nobody round here in my neck of the woods would be remotely interested in who that company is, frankly, and that's why I didn't rattle on about it. But that is not the same as my conviction that the contract was skewed and unfair. They screwed up the access to my house, needlessly, for many weeks, giving us grief. The compensation should have been paid without strings. Yet there are folks around here who think that the small man should shut his face to protect the undeserved reputation of a multinational giant. Well lemme tell you summat. That very mindset protected Savile, Weinstein and the Catholic Church for decades. I hope that my critics here feel happy about that, that the same sanctimonious attitude they demonstrate here led to mass sexual abuse of thousands of women and children. How good is that!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 06:09 PM

Wot some prominent Tories say:

Theresa May
‘If you look at the various layers of this issue, ?gagging clauses that try to prevent workers from whistleblowing, ie disclosing wrongdoing in the workplace to the relevant authority – are not ?legally valid or enforceable’

Maria Miller: Chair, Women and Equalities Committee
‘[NDAs] must not be used to prevent or dissuade victims from reporting incidents as is clearly the case now. We expect proper regulation of NDAs and that any unethical practices lead to strong and appropriate sanctions.'

Ruth Davidson: Scottish Conservatives
‘When does a legal instrument, designed to help both parties, become a tool for the weak to be beaten by the strong? ... There is a tragic irony
in cases where gagging clauses are sought because of an abuse of power, only for that power to be abused again to buy someone’s silence.’

(Cheers for that link, Jim)

This "legal" bit. Two blokes in suits from the company showed up at my house. They initially offered me a quarter of what I finally ended up with and a sixth of what I'd asked for. I told them that Mrs Steve would hack off my family jewels if I agreed to that. When we finally got to the agreed figure (two-thirds of what I'd asked for), they presented me with a sheet of A4 that was amateurishly typed out, requiring me to promise not to disclose the fact that they'd paid me money. They didn't even come ready to give me a copy.   There was the company heading but not a scintilla of a hint that this was in any way legally valid. Of course I took the bloody money. They SHOULD have been paying me that money but without the bind. Had the bind not been there, the good will would have been far greater. My wife knew every detail of the transaction and the events leading up to it and was bound by nothing. The whole thing was a farce. Signing the piece of paper caused me no inconvenience whatsoever so of course I took the bloody dough. I don't want to hear anybody here trying to tell me that they wouldn't have done the same (were I to disclose the sum, I can cast-iron guarantee that!). I wonder how many of the deals done by Weinstein and Green were of the same ilk. Most of them, I should think. I perfectly understand that commercial secrets may need to be protected and that no-one should be disclosing information that compromises national security. But this stuff should absolutely stop there. Buying people off to prevent embarrassment to companies or individuals is shoddy and should be verboten. Let's take the money and blab if we want to. That would serve real justice far better than the shabby behaviour by powerful individuals and companies some people here are defending.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 06:22 PM

Let's take the money and blab if we want to. That would serve real justice far better than the shabby behaviour by powerful individuals and companies some people here are defending.

That appears to be the option you took, but would the money have been paid if you had not signed? If not, then you were still taking money under false pretences if you had no intention of keeping the agreement.
As to "powerful individuals and companies some people here are defending", Where?
I see people here defending the rule of law, and the law of contract. I don't see anyone defending Philip Green or any of the others that you drag into the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 07:25 PM

Absolute rubbish. I did what anyone else would have done. Put my moniker at the bottom of a useless, non-binding, non-witnessed scrap of paper in exchange for *****grand, which I thoroughly deserved and more. It was all nods and winks, old chap. And it took me seventeen years to "breach" the thing, by which time nobody gives a flying fart. As for this, Nige: "I don't see anyone defending Philip Green or any of the others that you drag into the discussion" Er, in case you hadn't noticed, Philip Green just happens to be the subject of the thread! Bwahahaha! And of course you're defending him. You're trying to shoot down, on a pathetic apology of a technicality, anyone who is trying to expose the charlatan for the sexual predator and bully that he is. Doubtless countless women victims of his would gladly tell you to shove your "rule of law" where the sun don't shine, and quite right too. After all, that's probably what many of them understand only too well already. It took millions to pay them off...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 07:38 PM

Absolute rubbish. I did what anyone else would have done. Put my moniker at the bottom of a useless, non-binding, non-witnessed scrap of paper in exchange for *****grand, which I thoroughly deserved and more. It was all nods and winks, old chap. And it took me seventeen years to "breach" the thing, by which time nobody gives a flying fart. As for this, Nige: "I don't see anyone defending Philip Green or any of the others that you drag into the discussion" Er, in case you hadn't noticed, Philip Green just happens to be the subject of the thread! Bwahahaha! And of course you're defending him. You're trying to shoot down, on a pathetic apology of a technicality, anyone who is trying to expose the charlatan for the sexual predator and bully that he is. Doubtless countless women victims of his would gladly tell you to shove your "rule of law" where the sun don't shine, and quite right too. After all, that's probably what many of them understand only too well already. It took millions to pay them off...

I am in no way defending Philip Green. If you read it that way, that is down to a failing in your education.
As for "I don't see anyone defending Philip Green or any of the others that you drag into the discussion" Er, in case you hadn't noticed, Philip Green just happens to be the subject of the thread! Bwahahaha!" your recent post also mentioned protecting Savile, Weinstein & The Catholic church. They were not part of the title of the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 08:07 PM

They were germane to the point I was making about the covering-up of misdemeanours by powerful men. You make a very poor thread policeman, Nigel. Time you were in bed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 02:49 AM

"They were not part of the title of the discussion.£
But they are very much a partof the abue of power and how the establishment has protected them, which is exactly what has happened with Greenand has been standard practice for as long as I can remember
Edward Heath had to be long dead before the police admitted that they would have investigated him for paedofilia
As a ex-worker in the building trade I learned that when rot is reported in a structure you examined the whole house, not just the bits that showed on the surface
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 03:33 AM

"Edward Heath had to be long dead before the police admitted that they would have investigated him for paedofilia"

Care to offer any proof to substantiate the above. You are insulting both a Statesman and the police with not a scrap of evidence.

Perhaps this is because as an exworker in the building trade you do not understand the difference between rumour, hearsay and proof.
But I suspect you know the difference full well and are just stringing together you usual unsubstantiated slurs on, as yet, innocent people.

One of these days someone will bite and you will find a well deserved pile of grief arriving.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 04:01 AM

It is quite amusing to see those that support the rule of law being castigated as supporters of Green.
It must be time to point out that it is a basic tenet of English Law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Under a First World legal system, Mme la Justice is blind to moronic outbursts like “it stands to reason” and “how can you even suggest he didn’t do it?”.

There are many posting here that seems unable to grasp the difference between an accusation – and zero doubt based on duly presented evidence. No one here is defending Green against anything other than his right to a fair trial – rather than trial by fire, water and media to “see” if he’s a witch. We should, for example, bear in mind perhaps why he spent half a million quid on an injunction….could it be because he knew this was the treatment he would get?


In the loopy loony lackwit world of the labour lefties these fundamental distinctions are being overlooked as the crowd bays for blood
Below is a stunning example of leftard labour logic:

Ten years ago, Harriet Harman MP (prime #MeToo target audience) put forward a proposal in Parliament to send RBS boss Fred Goodwin to jail by passing a new law that would allow back-dated conviction of Goodwin “because it should’ve been law anyway”. Hattie the Harpie is far from being alone in her vandalising stupidity. And ignorance rarely leads to bliss.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 04:58 AM

As far as I'm aware, a trial of Green, fair or otherwise, is not in the offing, so the point falls as a red herring. You chaps who are resorting to this "rule of law" argument are saying, in effect, that protecting Green's reputation, which seems from his admissions and the amounts he's paid to his victims be be not worth defending, is far more important that letting victims of sexual abuse step forward. You're going back a couple of decades, aren't you, in protecting the rich and powerful from scrutiny. You are, in effect, arguing for the perpetuation of abuse by such people. If we have laws that say you can put your hand up skirts without permission then avoid scrutiny merely by using your wealth to buy off the victims and get an injunction, then the law is an ass. And it can be: within living memory, for example, there was a law saying you couldn't buy a pint in pubs in Wales on Sunday. One more thing: the rule of law has not been breached. It was within Hain's gift, and within the laws of the land, for him to invoke parliamentary privilege. You'd better find some other way of standing up for your grubby establishment hero, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 05:21 AM

Green is a proven bully who had been filmed punching a photographer
He paid a large sum of money out to buy anonymity when he was accused of racism and sexual persecution
He got women employees to sign Non Disclosure documents
He has now, after dening it, said that his rexual and racist behaviour was "only banter"
He comes from a culture where people like him (bullying and dishonest) are now know to be sxual preadators
You are supporting the idea that we should not be allowed to know who this individual is
You have no interest in law when it says the "wrong" things -
You have no interest in justice if it involves people you disapprove of
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 05:25 AM

"Care to offer any proof to substantiate the above. "
Go look it up - a what the hell, you'll ignore it anyway

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sir-edward-heath-report-child-sex-abuse-allegations-investigation-inquiry-grounds-interview-caution-a7984256.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 05:35 AM

I see my last post was well founded!

A well reasoned argument below!

" Lord Hain has effectively asserted that the allegations against Sir Philip are the “truth” despite the fact that there has been no judicial finding on this point. The Judge at first instance simply stated that the allegations against Sir Philip were “reasonably credible” (a view which the Court of Appeal accepted had force), but this is plainly not the same as determining their veracity. Lord Hain, however, appears to have interpreted the signing of a non-disclosure agreement as an admission of wrongdoing by Sir Philip. This is not a safe inference to draw given that non-disclosure agreements can be signed for various reasons (e.g. to avoid incurring the costs and time of litigation) and we do not know Sir Philip’s motivation for signing such agreements in this case. In the slightly distorted war on NDAs, it is often not appreciated that many complainants welcome or seek confidentiality provisions – because they want to resolve disputes quickly and privately (naming and shaming is not for everyone) and/or in consideration for a higher settlement payment. In this case, two of the complainants supported the application for an injunction. Where they are not ‘forced’ on individuals (which one suspects, in this country at least, is in the vast majority of cases), the just principles of certainty and finality should normally be observed.

What makes Lord Hain’s disclosure even more unjust and unfair is that Sir Philip cannot properly defend himself because he is himself precluded from divulging details of the information protected by the non-disclosure agreements. There may be information that helps to put into context some, or all, of the allegations made against Sir Philip, but at present the agreements mean that he is restricted to issuing a bare denial.

In assuming the role of judge, juror and executioner, Lord Hain has made a grave mistake. He has presented the public with an incomplete picture and, in so doing, has caused serious and arguably irreparable harm to Sir Philip’s reputation – and deprived him of his right to confidentiality. It simply cannot be in the public interest for the public to be supplied with limited information, which contains only one side of the story.   As the Court of Appeal recognised, delay in the publication of matters of public interest is undesirable and to counter this they ordered a speedy trial. Lord Hain should have waited for the judicial process to run its course before deciding whether it was appropriate to comment on the case.   In making such a decision he ought to have been guided by the judiciary, who, apprised of all relevant facts, would have been able to carry out the balancing exercise between the public interest in preserving confidentiality and the public interest in disclosure properly.
Whilst it is not perfect, the English justice system prides itself on being fair and observing due process – this applies equally to those accused of wrongdoing. It is unclear why a speedy trial was not good enough for Lord Hain.
Lord Hain has taken it on himself to deprive Sir Philip of a fair trial, instead forcing him to face trial by media. Sir Philip may be a controversial character – and may have upset some politicians and many members of the public in the manner he responded to questions by MPs over the collapse of BHS – but he is still entitled to a fair hearing.
Parliamentary privilege, is not intended to give politicians carte blanche to circumvent court orders. In this regard, Lord Hain’s naming of Sir Philip Green was wholly gratuitous. His explanation on BBC’s Newsnight for this abuse of privilege was woefully inadequate, with him seemingly being unable to go beyond a vague and generalised soundbite:” I’m discharging my function as a parliamentarian – and what concerned me about this case was wealth, and power that comes with it, and abuse.” Such a response merely serves to reinforce the impression that Lord Hain did not appreciate some of the salient facts of this case – that the contracts were freely entered into and two of the alleged victims supported Sir Philip’s application for an injunction.
It is perhaps somewhat ironic that Lord Hain has accused Philip Green of abusing his power, when he has arguably done just that.
full article

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 05:39 AM

If you cannot distinguish between allegation and proof one must wonder just what duties you were capable of performing in the building trade.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 06:04 AM

Peter Hain has simply named Green. He has not prejudiced any future trial by doing that. He hasn't compromised any evidence that might be brought by either defence or prosecution. Green has, de facto, admitted that he's the man in question. You are defending not only the indefensible but you are arguing for the perpetuation of sexual and racial abuse via keeping it secret. Had Hain not named him, there was every prospect that Green's offensive behaviour would never have been made public (and you can hardly deny that outing him is in the public interest) and would have given him carte blanche to carry on doing it. Well done for making that argument, I must say. It seems to me that protecting this charlatan's "confidentiality" (aka his dirty little secrets) is far more important to you than hearing from his victims and stopping him from carrying on having his grubby little indulgences.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 06:27 AM

"If you cannot distinguish between allegation and proof "
It's not abut either - it's about the right to know what is going on, which they are trying to suppress (with your support, of course)
You leap from "Hain was wrong to name names" to"we have no right to comment on his possible/probable guilt
Green Bought a gagging order, he presumably paid off victimes on the understanding that they signed documents ensuring heir silence
He will buy the very best legal advice to ensure he is fond innocent should any cases come to court
The only way we can possible know what these people get up to in these circumstances is through whistle-blowing - which you have slagged off
In these circumstances, justice and awareness is only available to those who can pay for it - an extremely dangerous and secretive world, considering the people involved
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 06:33 AM

"Peter Hain has simply named Green."

That is a very puerile position to take. Are the arguments presented to intricate for you to follow, or is it your demonstrable contempt for the law allows you to talk such nonsense. The harm done by Hain to due process has been spelt out at great length. What compounds his idiocy is that had he waited until the court reached a decision the entire matter could have been in the public domain anyway. What was of such over riding public interest that it could not wait a few more days.
His impetuosity still lacks adequate explanation. The man is a grandstanding charlatan that should be slung out of the Lords forthwith.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 06:54 AM

"Are the arguments presented to intricate for you to follow"
I think you've more than established that you are neither intelligent nor knowledgeable enough to talk down to anybody here and your tendency to do so further emphasises that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 07:20 AM

"I think you've more than established that you are neither intelligent nor knowledgeable enough to talk down to anybody here and your tendency to do so further emphasises that fact"

Provoking again little jimmie?
Make up your mind laddie! either I can or cannot. In your case it ain't no contest

'As Lord Peter Hain congratulates himself on using parliamentary privilege to scupper an interim injunction in ongoing legal proceedings, let’s hope he took a moment to think about the two complainants who did not want the information being made public.
It’s one thing if legal proceedings have concluded for a politician to wade in and frustrate the court’s ruling using parliamentary privilege. It is not ideal, but there’s a case to be argued. However to interrupt ongoing proceedings, assuming you know best, is rather arrogant.
Perhaps Lord Hain will do those affected the courtesy of publishing full written reasons for his ruling, based on the evidence he has considered, the applicable law and his assessment of the competing interests of the various persons involved.'

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 07:41 AM

Provoking again little jimmie?"
Nope, just pointing out that intelligent people don't have to keep telling people how intelligent they are and how stupid others are
Neither is the case here so stop showing your insecurity

Your quote was a blog (only) lifted directly from someone who (aptly) calls himself "The Secret Barrister" and confirms himself only a junior one
Legal experts of far higher standing have disagreed with what he says, as have fellow Politicians and researchers
This mindless dredging up of overwhelmingly unidentified blogs only serves to underline the opinion of your behaviour I have just offered - any moron with access to the net can find bloggers who agrees with him as you are constantly proving, so you high-handed dismissal of other people's responses need to be seen in that light
You are constantly dismissing arguments by saying "that is only your opinion"
Time you woke up to the fact that these are THESE ARE ONLY SOMEBODY'S OPINIONS - USUALLY EXTREMELY PARTISAN ONES Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 07:47 AM

"Peter Hain has simply named Green. He has not prejudiced any future trial by doing that." He may not have prejudiced any future criminal trial, but he has undermined a civil trial. We should be worried whenever peers or MPs interfere with the legal process.

Parliamentary privilege is an important freedom, but the Speaker of the House of Lords as said that "as parliamentarians we should be keen to respect the proper business of the courts, just as we expect the courts to respect the authority of parliament. In particular, we should be careful that in exercising our undoubted right to free speech in parliament we do not set ourselves in conflict with the courts or seek to supplant them".

It is very likely that these or similar allegations against Green would have emerged very soon. Apart from the possibility that a court case might have agreed to allow publication by the Telegraph, a new biography makes similar allegations of bullying and harassment (presumably from sources who can't be injuncted). So it's hard to see what Hain has achieved apart from breaking the news a few days earlier than might otherwise have happened, and perhaps denying the courts an opportunity to clarify the law in this area.

If the court had decided in Green's favour and given him permanent anonymity, Hain might then have had a stronger moral justification for then naming him. He could still be seen to supplant the court and could be said to be abusing parliamentary privilege in doing so, but at least he would have allowed the legal process to run its course before challenging it.

As I said in a previous post, this is not about defending Green. I'm not the least concerned that these allegations about him have become public, only the manner in which they have emerged.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 08:07 AM

Provoking again little jimmie?"
Nope, just pointing out that intelligent people don't have to keep telling people how intelligent they are and how stupid others are

Can a kind forum fairy delete this idiot?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 08:51 AM

"Can a kind forum fairy delete this idiot?"
Perhaps they can delete your own abusive behaviour while they're at it
Hopefully the forum fairies are a little more even handed that the justice (sic) system you are advocating
The abusive way you plead for the posting of others to be removed tends to make my point for me, doncha think
You have mine, and other's arguments - why not address them rather than searching out anonymous bloggers who agree with you?
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 10:45 AM

"It is very likely that these or similar allegations against Green would have emerged very soon."

How do you know? And how do you know that the shady business of the non-disclosure agreements wouldn't still have been concealed? It's my view that it's very much in the public interest that we know exactly how Green has been concealing his wrongdoings. What Hain has done is removed the potential for careful controlling and spinning of the release of the information. Good for him. And, once again, he has used parliamentary privilege. In the opinion of you Green apologists only, he's abused it. But you're wrong. As you will see. The rule of law is intact.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 11:15 AM

Peter Hain has simply named Green. He has not prejudiced any future trial by doing that.
He has if any judge involved in the trial seeks assurances that the jury have not been prejudiced by reading about the matter in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 11:21 AM

This gets ridiculous
Why should this turd have rights to privacy that nobody else does?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 11:25 AM

Simple answer to the simple question This gets ridiculous. Why should this turd have rights to privacy that nobody else does?
Jim Carroll
He doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 11:41 AM

And how precisely could a jury be "prejudiced" by the simple fact that the name of the accused standing in front of them was correctly publicised? And, while I hold no brief for businessmen in general, have you considered that other people were being damaged by twitter rumours about who the culprit was before Hain named Green? And have you not considered the position of the abused women whose only power in this matter was overridden by "deals" to keep their mouths shut? Or would you have preferred it that Green could just carry on as usual? Have you actually read anything about what kind of man he is? He may be your type but he bloody isn't mine.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 11:56 AM

How do I know? A biography has just been published (Damaged Goods: The Inside Story of Sir Philip Green, the Collapse of BHS and the Death of the High Street, by Oliver Shah). I haven't read it, but an article by the author in the Sunday Times gives the impression that his bullying behaviour is mentioned. Not all the sources will be subject to NDAs.

I don't regard the NDAs as "shady" in themselves. I can't be sure of course, but I fully expect these are a standard part of all Arcadia's settlement agreements and were not put in simply because of the nature of these particular allegations. This is standard practice (I signed one myself when I was made redundant, and my claim was on purely technical grounds rather than any allegations of misconduct). Of course, it is now being questioned whether NDAs are appropriate or should even be unlawful for allegations of this nature, but that is a different issue.

As for Hain's use of parliamentary privilege, I refer you to the comments of the Speaker of the House of Lords I quoted in my previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 12:17 PM

"He doesn't."Well why aren't we all entitled to have our name suppressed if we are accused of misbehaving or committing crimes Nigel
Don't be silly
This is a privilege extended only to the wealthy (I suppose that counts as "class jealousy, in your book)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 01:12 PM

"I don't regard the NDAs as 'shady' in themselves."

That's astounding. The NDAs in question paid out millions to women to keep quiet about sexual harassment and bullying. But you don't think that's shady? Sheesh.

There will be situations in which NDAs are appropriate. But this is not one of them, is it, Howard?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 01:34 PM

Further to the post of Howard Jones concerning the comments of the speaker of the house of Lords I refer you to my post of Date: 28 Oct 18 - 01:29 PM concerning a presumption not to speak in the house on matters in the courts or in the process of reaching the court (I suggest you check the precise phrasing)
This an additional aspect of Hain's premature disclosure that does not seem to have gained any prominence. Not only did he subvert the law by his premature disclosure but also went against clearly stated procedures and conventions of the house presumably without requesting? the discretion of the speaker.
To name names in the house is one matter, to name names in matters sub judice is surely another.

The definition Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom is a legal immunity enjoyed by Members of the House of Commons and House of Lords designed to ensure that Parliamentarians are able to carry out their duties free from interference.

There was a considerable stretch of duty in this case,in my book.

David HemmingMP named names twice concerning recipients of super injunctions granted to Fred Goodwin and Ryan Giggs. I believe the injunctions had been granted and no further action was in the offing when the naming occurred, unlike the present situation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 02:26 PM

More on our having no right to know what the rich get up to thanks to the rich who make the laws

You dedn't get back to me on the antics of Heath the Sheath - I trust you are happy that there were grounds to suspect that he had something to do with a group of paedofiles who might have been involved in murder
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 04:14 PM

"Not only did he subvert the law by his premature disclosure but also went against clearly stated procedures and conventions of the house presumably without requesting? the discretion of the speaker.
To name names in the house is one matter, to name names in matters sub judice is surely another."

He did not subvert the law. The law of the land allows parliamentary privilege by parliamentarians. That is resorted to within the law. There is no rule that the Speaker should have discretion over a member who wishes to invoke parliamentary privilege. So you don't agree with what he did. Too bad. He acted fully within the law. You should be far more worried about the fact that your man Green may not have, but that doesn't seem to trouble you. The matter is not sub judice. There is no ongoing process to which sub judice can be applied. It would help if you desisted from repeating these canards. It gets very tiresome. Please stick to the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 04:24 PM

Grounds to suspect is not quite the same as having evidence to justify
labelling the man a paedophile, especially as one of the accusers is facing 12 charges of perverting the course of justice. He has made false claims against judges, politicians, the army and uncle tom cobley and all
Nick would appear to be a fantasist just like you jim. He cannot distinguish between fact and fiction, hence the false accusations. Just like you yet again jim, you constantly make defamatory statements about people and run away bleating when requested to justify your grubby behaviour. You are simply not a very nice person.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 05:26 PM

What a tiresome fellow you are shaw; Here from the horses mouth:

The Sub Judice Rule of
the House of Commons

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, and to the right of the House to
legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its
proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following
rules on matters sub judice:
(1) Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be
referred to in any motion, debate or question.
(a)(i) Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons
to appear has been issued, or, in Scotland, a warrant to cite has been
granted.
(ii) Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by
verdict and sentence or discontinuance, or, in cases dealt with by courts
martial, after the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review.
(b)(i) Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as
setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are
ended by judgment or discontinuance.
(ii) Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil
proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding.
(c) Appellate proceedings, whether criminal or civil, are active from the time when
they are commenced by application for leave to appeal or by notice of appeal
until ended by judgment or discontinuance.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 05:48 PM

The horse did not say what you thought it did. Look it up. Sub judice does not refer to injunctions. There is no process here, and sub judice can refer only to a process. Maybe I don't read enough papers, etc., but I haven't seen much reference to sub judice anywhere else except by a couple of you on this forum. You may not like what Hain did, and I could, in theory, respect that, but fabricating stuff about subverting the rule of law or "sub judice" is totally inappropriate. We realise how much you want to defend Sir Phil and attack his critics at all costs, especially non-Tory ones, but it would be rather nice if we occasionally heard from you about the victims of his abuses. The fact that we never do hear that speaks volumes about your mindset. I should get it adjusted if I were you. Read up on Sir Phil and his workplace shenanigans, and make sure that you don't connive in his rampant bullying and rampant misogyny. That's what your posts plainly suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 06:08 PM

The decision of the English Court of Appeal to grant an interim injunction preventing the publication of details of the senior executive involved in alleged misconduct was circumvented by Lord Hain who used parliamentary privilege to name him in the House of Lords as Sir Philip Green.The judges granted "an interim injunction preserving the confidentiality of the information pending a full trial".
However, the principle of parliamentary privilege is at odds with the “sub judice” rule. This rule is meant to balance freedom of speech with freedom or responsibility; and to prevent MPs or Members of the House of Lords from referring to a current or impending court cases in parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 06:27 PM

I guess the major point here is that names can be named in Parliament without fear or favour. The problem arises when a case is sub judice and names are named.
The executive branch of government is very fussy about its independence from the judiciary and the converse is true for the judiciary.
When names are named and the matter is sub judice the waters are muddied and both parties start to get a little miffed because the clear separation of powers between the executive and judiciary are blurred.
This is not good for me, you,the rule of law and democracy.
It does not matter whether the subject of interest is Green or the next door neighbours cat. It is the fact that their is potential for conflict that is paramount and that the executive is preempting the power and independence ofthe judiciary. That is the only issue at stake here. That is why the issues are far greater than either the man or the dammed cat.

You may call it a canard if you wish. You are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 06:40 PM

But, you see, there IS no current or impending trial. I don't understand your difficulty in getting your head round that. This "sub judice" stuff is a complete red herring as things currently stand. Things may evolve if Green is ever charged with a criminal offence. That seems very unlikely at this point. You don't like what's happened but that's no excuse for making specious claims about this horrible man's opponents. Stick to the facts. There has been no breach of sub judice and no breach of the rule of law, no matter how much you'd like there to be.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 06:47 PM

"It does not matter whether the subject of interest is Green or the next door neighbours cat"

But, you see, it matters a hell of a lot. The next door neighbours cat [sic] has scoffed some KiteKat meant for my own cat. Outrageous in itself and the reason that cats have square arses. But that cat's transgressions are as nothing when set beside Green's sexual depradations.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 07:19 PM

You seem to be under the impression that "trial" means only a criminal trial. A civil court case was to have been held and that is just as much a trial and sub judice also applies.

There also seems to be an assumption that an NDA would only have been imposed if the allegations were true, whereas they are routinely used in settlement agreements regardless of the issues. The mere existence of an NDA cannot be taken as evidence of guilt, and the use of standard contract terms is not in itself "shady".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 07:19 PM

But, you see, there IS no current or impending trial. I don't understand your difficulty in getting your head round that.

The judges granted "an interim injunction preserving the confidentiality of the information pending a full trial".

Tell me what part of interim do you not understand? It is axiomatic that an interim judgement would lead to another trial!
Pending a full trial can also be read as an impending trial

Now that Hains has blabbed there is little point in having a trial to decide if confidentiality should be maintained or not.
At the time of the disclosure a further trial was still imminent.
(as has been said innumerable times)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 18 - 09:06 PM

Trial?? Sir Phil has not been charged, no judge nor jury has been appointed and no date has been booked. Are you sure you're following this?? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 01:57 AM

Do you not understand the difference between the criminal and the civil law? Green had brought a case in the civil courts. This case was awaiting trial whem Hain breached the injunction.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 02:34 AM

If that were so Howard the rich people could forever preserve their anonymity by bringing a series of vexations litigations. Hain did not "breach" the injunctions, he is allowed to name him under parliamentary privilege. And if there are to be restrictions on this in the future, they should apply only to criminal cases.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 02:39 AM

Oh dear,oh dear, oh dear.
If Shaw is correct and the rest of humanity is wrong tis a strange thing that several newspapers have articles running accusing Hains of dipping his toes in matters judicial. If the court case was terminated these accusations would not be made. Neither would they be made had the matter not been sub judice.
I do admit that I find it a little strange that their use of language is so coy. Perhaps by breaching his own Parliamentary code Hains has created something of a constitutional crisis and and they wish to play it down so the hoipolloi miss the main event. We shall see how it plays out. Remember when Tommy Robinson was found in contempt of court he was slung in jail. I wonder what protection Hains has for breaching Parliamentary rules. I know a Mr Moneybags that will have teams scouring the law books and case law to crucify the man.
As I have already stated not only did Hains use Parliamentary privilege but he abused it by breaking the very clear rules of the house. Furthermore he did so deliberately, knowing full well the matter was to be resolved in court as a matter of urgency.
He used Parliamntary privilege to name names as is his right
He did so knowing the matter was still to come under the consideration of the courts
He knew the court would reach a decision in the near future
He decided to deliberately frustrate the function of the judiciary by
preempting their decision.
I am not too sure that Parliamentary Privilege encompasses all his mis/deeds. I think this will have to play out in the courts at a later date.
I am surprised these issues were not picked over in the media- or am I?

He has been a very naughty boy and Mr Green will make sure his ass is grass. I look forward to his comeuppance. I hope the ticket sales start soon!
Furthermore the administrative, executive and judiciary are very very protective of their fiefdoms and if they feel they have been slighted we may well see hell on wheels as they defend their territory.
We live in interesting times!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 04:14 AM

Hain breached the injunction, but he is protected from the consequences of this because of parliamentary privilege. He is being strongly criticised for this because parliamentary rules suggest that it should not be used to disclose matters which are sub judice. Nevertheless Hain is probably safe from being prosecuted for contempt of court, which might have happened had he made his statement outside Parliament, but he may still be disciplined by the parliamentary authorities.

I don't really see why civil court proceedings should be considered less worthy of protection than criminal cases. They are equally important in protecting people's rights, and whilst the law is certainly more affordable for the rich there are plenty of examples of where ordinary people are able to use the law to protect themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 04:27 AM

"Hain breached the injunction, but he is protected from the consequences of this because of parliamentary privilege"

You may be right, we shall see.

Meanwhile the Times today. The Lord Chancellor:
“Therefore, I have serious concerns about the use of parliamentary privilege to undermine the rulings of our independent judiciary. Where judges have seen fit to make a court order, their rulings should be respected. It is particularly hard to justify using parliamentary privilege when the court process is ongoing.”
"“You will all have seen the coverage of Lord Hain’s decision to make use of parliamentary privilege to name an individual despite the existence of a court order,” he told a gathering of judges and lawyers in London..........

Freedom of speech, Mr Gauke said, was “an important constitutional principle” but “so, too, is respect for the rule of the law and the jurisdiction of the courts”.


Early days I suspect. Thus far the language is tempered.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 04:36 AM

Further from the BBC
"The naming of Sir Philip Green in the House of Lords is a surprising development.

People will remember back to the super-injunction stories of recent years, including the case of footballer Ryan Giggs. When he was named using parliamentary privilege, it was frowned upon.

Parliamentarians and the judiciary alike were very concerned that this privilege should not be used to undermine the rule of law.

And a great effort was made from that time to ensure that this didn't happen again.

So the judiciary is unlikely to be pleased.

The injunction in this case was a court order granted by three of the most senior judges in the country at the Court of Appeal.

It was the rule of law in action. They had before them many facts and evidence to consider and came to a ruling that was pretty emphatic.

We have not got a constitutional crisis on our hands here, but we do have a really significant development in terms of the way in which parliamentary privilege is seen to be used in relation to court orders."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 05:09 AM

As certain happy posters love to to highlight Guido's somewhat chequered past I feel it only right that Lord Hains should share the spotlight.


Peter Hain

In comparison it must be said that friend guido is likely eligible for sainthood!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 05:26 AM

You have moved from a right wing tory blogger to an anonymous racist hate-site for your "information"
What a load of shit, summed up perfectly by Hain being escribved as a ""

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 05:28 AM

Again. The rule of law is intact. In this country a parliamentarian, under the rule of law, is permitted to exercise parliamentary privilege. It is a very valuable aspect of the constitution that helps to preserve democracy. You will find few if any cases of the invoking of parliamentary privilege that have militated against the public interest. In this case the judge was clearly wrong to grant an injunction which did little more than protect a billionaire megalomaniac from embarrassment and everything to shut his victims up. That is against the public interest and is a backward step that returns us to the days of Savile, Weinstein and Rolf Harris. The exercise of parliamentary privilege in this case was entirely appropriate. The way you chaps are talking, parliamentary privilege would never be appropriate. You are arguing against democracy and against the human rights of his victims. And yes, the judge was wrong. Judges, God bless 'em all, are generally spawned in a privileged boys' wonderland. This judge clearly thought that Green's buying-off of his victims should have been enough for them. I'm no fan of Peter Hain, but in this case we should be loudly applauding him for putting a wrecking ball through this piece of outrageous injustice - and standing up for the rights of women victims of sexual predators. You chaps who seem to be hanging on to bogus legal technicalities (which you've got all wrong) are arguing for setting us back decades. See the end of the 02.39 am post for abundant evidence of that sickening attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 05:31 AM

.... hHain being deescribed as a BANK ROBBER

Hain was totally cleared of this politically motivated charge
I think your accusations puts paid to any pretense you might have of a concern for law and justice - he was totally exonerated
Why are you posting this garbage from a blloggers hate site - are you really that desperate for an argument?
Sick
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 05:37 AM

"You may be right, we shall see."
AS we shall see if Green is the perv he is accused of being, and how so many others have turned out to be AND HOW SO MANY OTHERS HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 05:49 AM

sauce for the goose jimmie, sauce for the goose! just thought I might play your own game(briefly)

Steve it is very early days yet. As the proverb says:
The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.
and to quote another execrable proverb:
It ain't over till the fat lady sings

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 06:07 AM

"sauce for the goose jimmie, sauce for the goose! "
I have never resorted to racist blogs as you just have
All my links are traceable and they have nothing to do with spreading hate - you have just shit in your own nest
"Jimmie"
And your pathetic attempts to talk down to those who hate t=racist hate sites confirms that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 06:35 AM

froth, froth and yet more froth. Your white night has been guilty of criminality since his 1972 conviction for criminal conspiracy.
At 15, Hain spoke at the funeral of John Frederick Harris, an anti-apartheid activist who was hanged for murder for the bombing of the Johannesburg main railway station, injuring 23 people and killing an elderly woman, Mrs Ethyl Rhys. Mrs Rhys's grand daughter suffered severe burns.
As an MP he was   forced to resign in 2008 as the Work and Pensions secretary, after the Electoral Commission referred the failure to report donations to Metropolitan Police.
There was an attempted contempt of court proceedings but the case was dropped on 17 May 2012 after Hain agreed to "clarify" comments to show he didn't question Girvan's motives or his handling of the judicial review.
All matters of public record and so much more. In your usual blinkered fashion you condemn the source and do not consider the content. You fall in the same holes over and over again. Do you never get fed up with the bruises you silly little man?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 06:35 AM

From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 05:31 AM
.... hHain being deescribed as a BANK ROBBER

Hain was totally cleared of this politically motivated charge
I think your accusations puts paid to any pretense you might have of a concern for law and justice - he was totally exonerated
Why are you posting this garbage from a blloggers hate site - are you really that desperate for an argument?
Sick Jim Carroll

I don't see anyone here describing Peter Hain as a 'bank robber'. What point are you trying to refute here?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 06:50 AM

"I don't see anyone here describing Peter Hain as a 'bank robber'. "
Bottom of the hate article Iain's Ian's just linked to
I chose that particularly because it was my local bank Hain was accused of robbing - it was a set up from start to finish - somewhat typical of the dirty tricks your lot are notorious for
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 07:04 AM

This all seems rather trivial.

If this were the US, Green would be President, the victim would be abused every night on his tame TV channels and Hain would be getting pipe bombs in the post.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 07:25 AM

Please don't respond in kind, Jim. He's making a noose for himself. Let him keep doing it. We should be rid of him soon, I should think.

Exaggerated accounts of previous misbehaviour have nothing to do with this present matter. It would be dead easy to give a whole litany of Green's previous dodgy dealings that would make Hain look like a saint by comparison, but that is also irrelevant. We are where we are, as they say, and Hain is just another of the many flawed characters in both houses. But he ain't that bad. The trouble is, Jim, we are dealing here on this forum with a chap whose mindset is fashioned by too much resort to Guido Fawkes, whose raison d'être is to smear lefties and nowt else. The nub of this matter is that a silly judge has decided that a megalomaniac billionaire, who is known to be a serial workplace bully, misogynist, racist and sexual harasser of women, must be protected. There's plenty on him in far more reputable sources than that provided by Mr Staines, and I'm pretty sure the latter isn't too concerned about Green, though I'm not going to taint meself by visiting his blog to find out, thanks. The whole thing around Green is an outrage which tramples on the human rights of his women victims, who are gagged. We can do the good old British thing of mumbling complaints among ourselves, or we can applaud Hain's bravery in blowing the outrage wide open. He can't be all bad, because he's made Sir Phil hopping mad, and megalomaniacs who like to think that they're invulnerable by dint of money, power and influence don't like that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 07:28 AM

Nice bit of context Jack - we haven't quite reaached that stage yet but we're doing our best!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 07:40 AM

I was referring to Iains, to be clear.

There are plenty of parallels between Green and Trump, Jack. Two men who are racist and misogynistic, both of whom think that they are entitled to do whatever they want, both of whom think they are invulnerable. As Corporal Jones would say, the type of men that don't like it up 'em, as Hain has shown. I predict that Peter Hain won't come out of this too badly. There's plenty of Green's dirty linen still to be aired, and there's been quite a lot already. He's spent millions resorting to the law and buying people off to gag them so that he can carry on bursting unannounced into meetings he didn't need to attend, giving the women in there "overly-long hugs" and weird little "massages," calling them pet names, telling them to shut the fuck up when they ask politely to be addressed by their proper names and told that it wouldn't be worth throwing them out of the window because they're so fat that they'd bounce back in. And I haven't even started on his racism. This is the man that Iains, Nigel and Howard would like to see protected. By their fruits...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 07:51 AM

"In this case the judge was clearly wrong to grant an injunction which did little more than protect a billionaire megalomaniac from embarrassment and everything to shut his victims up. "

Steve, you are clearly an intelligent man so I find it difficult to understand why you don't seem to be able to grasp the issue. An application was made to the court asking them to prevent publication of these claims. The injunction was a temporary measure to maintain the status quo until the court could hear the arguments and decide whether publication should be allowed or not. It would clearly have been a nonsense if the newspaper could jump the gun and publish anyway, before the court had a chance to consider the case. It is a usual and expected part of the legal process in situations where the court is being asked to decide on whether something should or should not be allowed, and I think I am correct in saying that the other parties did not object.

Parliamentary privilege is indeed important, but so are other rights. The issue is not whether Hain could use parliamentary privilege but whether he should have done. There may well have been a public interest justification in revealing Green's name, but there is also a public interest argument for not having politicians interfere with the legal process.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 08:40 AM

Oh, I can grasp the issue all right. A judge made a completely unjustified decision to protect a man whose form is well known. I don't know which "other parties" didn't object, but I imagine they didn't include the gagged women victims of Green. In the meantime there was a rash of Twitter rumours implicating other businessmen. I simply can't imagine why you think any of this was the right way to go. Well done, Hain. He's quite intelligent too, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 08:44 AM

And what was interfering with the legal process was the attempt to preserve Green's anonymity. Unconscionable. Tell me why you think the poor wee thing deserved that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 11:16 AM

https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/10/gordon-dadds-seals-merger-with-ince-co-but-remains-tight-lipped-over-whether-lord-hain-will-h

Gordon Dadds seals merger with Ince & Co but remains tight-lipped over whether Lord Hain will have role with the new firm.

Possible but unlikely I surmise!

A refresher:
I took the decision to name Sir Philip Green in my personal capacity as an independent member of the House Of Lords. I categorically state that I was completely unaware Gordon Dadds were advising the Telegraph regarding this case.
Lord Hain is paid adviser to law firm that represented The Telegraph in Sir Philip Green injunction case

Hain’s statement triggered a flurry of tweets from lawyers pointing out that Gordon Dadds’ name appeared in bold on the front page of the High Court judgment.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 11:26 AM

Well of course all lefties must be liars. They're reds and what more do you need (cheers, Andy Irvine). Whereas the Greens of this world, gropers such as Sir Phil and Damien, are so squeaky clean and must be defended by all misogynists the world over (including some on this forum) on whatever technicalities we can dredge up. Sod their poor victims. They're all only women anyway. After all, the gropers, and let's include Trump, are right-wingers so must of course be wielding the sword of truth. I know. I read it on Guido.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 11:40 AM

Well I would just hate to disappoint you Steve. So for your edification and delight I present hot off the press:


https://order-order.com/2018/10/31/shadow-cabinet-ministers-twitter-blocking-spree/

The real story is her son
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6335867/Labour-Shadow-Cabinet-Minister-employs-son-taxpayer-funded-spin-doctor-despite-

Even the squeaker is involved. Cannot have convicted drugs criminals running round the commons with a security pass now can we?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 02:13 PM

An interesting article some years old on relevant material:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/21/judges-challenge-use-parliamentary-privilege

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 02:53 PM

John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the Commons culture select committee, called for an urgent change to the law to ensure the media can report proceedings in parliament. "Not only [is] it essential that MPs should be allowed to raise matters in parliament," he said, "it [is] as important that the media should be free to report MPs' comments. We need to change the law to make it clear that reporting is allowed."

Whittingdale also defended the right of MPs to use privilege to speak out on public interest matters. "If there is a clear public interest, they should be able to speak about that issue," he said.

John Hemming, the Lib Dem MP who first raised banker Sir Fred Goodwin's injunction in the Commons, accused judges of attempting to gag parliament. "They're arguing that issues like poisoned water should not be debated publicly," he said. "I think they're wrong."

"Cannot have convicted drugs criminals running round the commons with a security pass now can we?"
But it's perfectly acceptable for Ministers to campaign against legalising drugs, forgetting to mention that her husband has a huge legal drugs farm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/drugs-minister-victoria-atkins-hypocrisy-cannabis-paul-kenward-british-sugar-a8356056.html

For Christ's sake, this is about protecting a probable sexual predator, not about ****** drugs
Parliament is full of self- servers in all parties, this is why it is necessary to kick out the ld guard adnd replace them with principled politicians
Rape and sexual predation is one of the hardest accusations to prove, usually it only takes a predator with cash enough cash to buy a slick lawyer to bury any wrongdoing, that is why the vast majority of them go UNREPORTED
At the very least we need to know who the suspects are, as we do in most crimes

This is like being back at school, where all the lads with ties and Brycreamed hair leap to attention everytime royalty or someone of importance is mentioned
It really is time you people got your heads out of the arse of the establishment and regarded the shitty crimes you are defending
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 02:59 PM

But they love the taste of posh-boys' shit, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 03:22 PM

I think the issues have been spelt out very clearly, numerous times.
Are those that bluster unable to follow the carefully constructed arguments or simply refusing to accept that they are hopelessly wrong?

There seems to be a total inability to accept/understand by certain posters that Parliament creates laws,the judiciary interprets them.
That is it. end of story.
If the law is shown to be inadequate because of unacceptable outcomes Parliament must recognise the fact and legislate to make it acceptable.
Bleating it is not fair is not going to change anything and members of both houses using parliamentary privilege to thwart the judiciary are leaving themselves wide open to censure. Do not forget the man that created this situation is the man that claimed he was so busy he forgot to declare £100,000 of donations.
Furthermore
The peer who exposed Sir Philip Green for trying to prevent the reporting of gagging orders himself insisted on confidentiality when settling a legal action involving the police, it was alleged yesterday.

Lord Hain, 68, the former Labour cabinet minister who named the Topshop tycoon last week by invoking parliamentary privilege, faced potential accusations of hypocrisy after he insisted on confidentiality in a settlement involving a defamation claim against him by a Scotland Yard detective.

Well, well,well!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 03:22 PM

"At the very least we need to know who the suspects are, as we do in most crimes"

Absolutely, Jim. And STRAIGHT AWAY. Savile was able to carry on because there was a conspiracy for years to not let us know. Same with the Catholic Church. Same with Weinstein. Same with Rolf Harris. When we are deprived of the knowledge of who the suspects are, more and more victims are made. Green bought off his victims to shut them up then took out an injunction and to hell with the millions he didn't care he was spending. There's plenty more where that came from. He's the ninth richest person in this country, worth two billion at least, and is in the world top 400, and he's discovered that money can buy injustice. Until Hain came along, that is. No wonder he's cross. I honestly can't understand why there's anyone here who doesn't share Peter Hain's outrage at the miscarriage of justice that that injunction brought about. What we don't need is judges like that. What we do need is more people like Hain.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 03:28 PM

Another incomprehensible phenomenon being exhibited here by three posters is the assumption of the ex-cathedra infallibility of the judiciary. Maybe they should take a little step back and see where most of our judges actually come from. What class, what gender, you know, that kind of thing. Some of us haven't forgotten Lord Denning and the Birmingham Six. What an appalling vista!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 04:07 PM

Ex-cathedra infallibility is a claim made only by the Pope and I would presume Mr Shaw, judging by the tenor of his copious posts. The rest of humanity are content with lesser aspirations.

Not only claiming infallibilty but also a conspiracy theorist. What other multitudinous talents does the man conceal from us?

I most certainly do not support Lord Hain's outrage, I am outraged by Hain.

Hypocrisy and some iffy behaviour is the least of his sins. The rest have been tabulated at length on here.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 18 - 05:11 PM

A response to that would be infra dig.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 09:27 AM

More of what we wouldn’t have known if it hadn’t been for Peter Hain
Jim Carroll

This morning's Times
GREEN WAS ‘A BULLY WHO JUST WANTED TO FLEECE SUPPLIERS AND RIP OFF CUSTOMERS’
Deirdre Hipwell Retail Editor
A former Topshop executive has accused Sir Philip Green of being a bully and a mediocre retailer from whom she had to “protect” her team when she worked at the fashion chain.
In a stinging criticism of the troubled billionaire, Jane Shepherdson said there was “no question” that Sir Philip was a bully who always wanted to “screw the supplier” and “rip off the customer”.
Ms Shepherdson said: “When I first came across him I was fortunate that Topshop was very successful so there wasn’t the power imbalance. He didn’t bully me, he would try to, he would get very angry and shout a lot. And I would get very angry and shout a lot.
“I had brought on this incredibly tal¬ented team of people to work at Top¬shop. There was no way I would have them exposed to the way Philip ran his business. I felt it was my duty to protect my team.” she told an event hosted by The Daily Telegraph yesterday,
Ms Shepherdson, a former brand director at Topshop, is the most senior former colleague of Sir Philip, the driv¬ing force behind Arcadia Group’s Top-shop, Miss Selfridge, Dorothy Perkins and Burton brands, to speak out against him since he was outed as the business¬man accused of bullying and sexual harassment by staff, who are alleged to have been “gagged” as part of settle¬ment agreements.
Sir Philip was named in the House of Lords by the former Labour cabinet minister Lord Hain under parliament¬ary privilege, despite a court order preventing details of the case from being made public. Sir Philip has cate¬gorically denied any wrongdoing, in¬cluding suggestions that he was guilty of unlawful sexual or racist behaviour.
The undermining of the privacy in¬junction is a further blow to the retail magnate whose reputation was badly damaged after he sold BHS for £1 to a consortium led by Dominic Chappell, a three times-bankrupt, in 2015.
The chain’s failure a year later led to condemnation of Sir Philip, despite him pumping £363 million into BHS’s pen¬sion schemes last year.
Retail analysts claim that Topshop has not been the same since Ms Shep¬herdson left. When she took over as brand director in 1998 Topshop had an annual profit of more than £9 million. It had risen to about £110 million by the time she left in 2006.
Topshop did continue to grow sales and profits strongly after Ms Shep¬herdson left and many members of her team did stay on with the chain. It is only in the past few years that trading has become much tougher.
Yesterday, Ms Shepherdson, who stepped down as chief executive of Whistles, a fashion brand, in 2016, said she did not think Sir Philip had ever been a very good retailer. “His view was if I screw the supplier enough I can get the price up enough and then I can rip off the customer. He was a dealer, he wasn’t a great retailer in any sense, and knew very little about fashion.”
Ms Shepherdson also said she never saw Sir Philip harass anyone sexually, adding: “That’s not to say it didn't happen, but I didn’t see it.” Sir Philip declined to comment.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 09:51 AM

"Troubled billionaire": nice oxymoron!

The only ex cathedra announcements made in my house come from the lavatorium when someone is trying to come in: " You can't come in, there's already somebody in 'ere!"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 10:29 AM

The point is that a parliamentarian, and an unelected one at that, has used parliamentary privilege to undermine the authority of the courts, contrary to parliamentary rules on how this privilege should exercised. In this particular case, you don't care about this because you (very understandably) dislike the person who has been disadvantaged by this and are pleased with the outcome. Just don't complain when it happens about something you do care about.

You all seem to have assumed that Green would have won his case. If the Telegraph's sources had come from people not bound by NDAs then he may not have succeeded in permanently preventing publication. The court may have decided that the NDAs don't prevent the identification of the parties themselves, as suggested by another article in today's Times. Because of Hain's premature intervention we shall never know.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 10:31 AM

The undermining of the privacy (interim)in¬junction is a further blow to the retail magnate whose reputation was badly damaged .......

Who cannot make any response as yet, because he is bound by the courts injunction.
Were those that took the money now bound to pay it back?

Back in 2011 Lord Judge, observed: “It is, of course, wonderful for you if a member of parliament(or the Lords) stands up in parliament(or the Lords) and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.

But you do need to think whether it’s a good idea for our lawmakers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or they disagree with the privacy law created by parliament.”

If the executive find fault with decisions of the court, it is up to them to change the legislation in order the Judicial interpretation
meet with their requirements.

It is worth recapping the nature of the man that made the exposure:

1)Lord Hain, 68, the former Labour cabinet minister who named the Topshop tycoon last week by invoking parliamentary privilege, faced potential accusations of hypocrisy after he insisted on confidentiality in a settlement involving a defamation claim against him by a Scotland Yard detective.
2) Lord Hain is on a retainer for perhaps the largest legal company in the UK, yet makes no attempt to enquire within as to a possible conflict of interest should they perhaps be representing the Telegraph.
3)Courtesy of Guido we can clearly see the names of the three judges and the lawyers and their companies on the front page of the widely circulated injunction. For Hains to claim he did not know of the link one is forced to conclude he either did not see the document or is perhaps telling porkies. Perhaps he may claim again to be incompetent, as he did when he was forced to resign from the cabinet Does not say much for his attitude to due diligence does it?

It does make the white night more than a little tarnished!


The public trial of Phillip Green

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 11:06 AM

"It is worth recapping the nature of the man that made the exposure:"
No it isn't - not from somebodyt who puts up a crimial shittlikr paul Staines as "evidence"

"The public trial of Phillip Green"
There's a damn sight more evidence against Green that they has ever been against the Labour Party yet it never stopped you people waging your war against them
Pity the poor multi-billionaire eh - can't you just hear the violins !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 12:19 PM

"Because of Hain's premature intervention we shall never know."

Perhaps you'd care to explain how that follows.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 12:25 PM

"...contrary to parliamentary rules on how this privilege should exercised."

Please show me the rules in question and apprise me as to who with parliamentary authority has decided that he acted contrary to them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 12:27 PM

"Because of Hain's premature intervention we shall never know."

Perhaps you'd care to explain how that follows.

He spoke out while a temporary injunction was in force meaning the court has not had a chance to decide the issue/s
Hains has rather destroyed their perogative by premature exposure. Had he waited until the court decided they may have ruled in favour of the telegraph.
But then he would have lost his chance to grandstand.

There's a damn sight more evidence against Green that they has ever been against the Labour Party yet it never stopped you people waging your war against them

Once again you use bluster, rumour, hearsay and opinion as opposed to a court judgement that could establish the facts. I merely highlight the fact that the Labour party has created many NDAs (whether for innocent or nefarious purposed we shall never know)

Please show me the rules in question and apprise me as to who with parliamentary authority has decided that he acted contrary to them.

The matter was subjudice. The rules concerning matters under subjudice in both houses can be fully addressed only at the discretion of the respective speakers. Sub Judice only applies to both houses. Outside the house revised contempt of court rules apply.

Whether parliamentary privilege still applies to matters under subjudice has not as yet been tested(but I cannot be certain on this point) As I have said previously when this situation last occurred the courts decision had been finalised, which even you must admit is a somewhat different proposition to where we now find ourselves.
Many in the judiciary and executive are unhappy with Hains and I imagine the legal beagles acting for the Telegraph are incandescent.
It is early days to know what if anything will happen.

The problem that we have, and I think few would dispute it, is that the law as it stands is in dire need of revision. Judges cannot change the law, they only interpret it. Parliament must make any revisions.
Had the court case been allowed to continue without hains premature intervention clarity might have resulted from the resultant judgement.

As to who polices them:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/house-of-lords-members-conduct/

In essence using parliamentary privilege is controversial at the best of times.
It remains to be seen if breaching subjudice rules is regarded as use or misuse of parliamentary privilege.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 12:39 PM

"No it isn't - not from somebodyt who puts up a crimial shittlikr paul Staines as "evidence""

The evidence is in the photograph you silly little man. Once again you attack the source not the content. God must have blessed you with a unique set of synapses.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 12:45 PM

"Once again you use bluster, rumour, hearsay and opinion as opposed to a court judgement that could establish the fact"
And once again you ignore the fat that there was not even a qualified accusation against the Labour Party when you and yours savaged them - and there still isn't
You have selected to side with the rich and famous rather than those who have made specific accusations (not rumors) against this evil twat)
Your entire case has been that his name should have been kept secret because he bought that right
I don't bluster -I leave that to those who have to make an effort not to indulge in childish personal insulting.
"In essence using parliamentary privilege is controversial at the best of times."
Who says it is, Guido?
It is a parliamentary right and we should be thankful that some people have the balls to expose the pervs
There you go again supporting the right of the wealthy and powerful being able to buy anonymity
Sexual predation against women is gradually being exposed as being commonplace in the upper echelons of society - they bust be grateful for the cap-differs and arse kissers who allow them to continue pursuing their "little weaknesses"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 12:54 PM

An interesting article on the code of conduct in the Lords.
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/house-of-lords-commissioner-for-standards-/cod

Financial inducements and parliamentary influence

15. Members are required under paragraph 7 of the Code to base their actions on consideration of the public interest. Acceptance of financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence would necessarily contravene this principle. Paragraph 8(c) of the Code therefore states that members “must never accept or agree to accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”.

16. Paragraph 8(d) of the Code describes the specific application of the principles described in paragraphs 7 and 8(c): members “must not seek to profit from membership of the House by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”

To cut to the quick on that: Hains takes remuneration from the company representing the Telegraph. The Telegraph wants disclosure , hence employing same said lawyers,
Up pops Hains with parliamentatry privilege, names names, gives the Telegtraph carte blanche to print.Jobs done its a good on

Hains relies on a defence of" not knowing this company represented the Telegraph!"

Not being able to manoeuvre through legal minefields, my take is he is very naughty.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 12:55 PM

I posted two short questions. I got a very long reply which answered neither of them. The poster of that reply is now getting all rude yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 01:06 PM

They are perhaps guidelines rather than "rules". The British constitution is a flexible thing. Either way, parliament had made it clear that privilege should be used very carefully where legal matters are concerned and that its members should avoid challenging the authority of the courts. It will be for the parliamentary authorities to decide whether and how Hain should be disciplined.

As has already been pointed out several times, since the point of the court case was to decide whether or not the Telegraph could publish and reveal Green's identity, since Hain put his name in the public domain there would be little point in proceeding with it. The court has therefore been denied the opportunity to consider the matter, and possibly to clarify the law.

And while I am repeating myself yet again, can I again point out that this is not about defending Green. It is not that his name has been made public that I am concerned about, but the manner and timing of it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 01:09 PM

"my take is he is very naughty."
Bogged down is the phrase I think Steve
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 01:33 PM

You're being just as vague as Iains, Howard. Interestingly, I've heard no fuss whatsoever about any breach of sub judice anywhere except on this forum. Also, I should like to know how the accurate naming of an alleged miscreant, which is all Hain did, could prejudice anything at all except a decision, which would have been an entirely wrong and almost certainly ineffective decision, to perpetuate Green's anonymity. What Hain has done is to demonstrate that power and money has not bought the anonymity, and avoidance of embarrassment, to Green that he so lusted after. The fact that there were other victims apart from the five who signed NDAs, perfectly free to speak out, makes his stance all the more laughable. He was always going to be exposed, and there was nothing the courts could have done about it. Granting the injunction brought the legal system into disrepute.

Exposing Green, quite likely emboldening other victims to come forward sooner rather than later, and showing that money, power and influence can't be guaranteed to buy injustice, was one hundred percent in the public interest. I can't see how anyone can deny that. The end has fully justified the means. If you don't agree, then I'd like to ask you precisely what it is you think you're defending. Don't give yourselves indigestion.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 02:40 PM

Quite likely the reason sub judice is not used is because the concept is now restricted to both houses of Parliament. Outside the house the revised laws on contempt of court supplant it and the expression is obsolete.

and yet again, as explained several times, and spelt out in detail some while back. There is agreement in both houses that matters before a court are not to be discussed in the house unless permission is previously sought from the respective speaker.
If a matter is not to be discussed in either house because judicial proceedings are ongoing it adds additional gravitas to putting details in the public domain by the device of Parliamentary Privilege.

Green may not make your Chrsitmas card list, but he is entitled to the same protection of the court as anyone else. If there is perceived to be a fault it lies with parliament and legislation, not with the courts.

My view is that Hains overstepped the mark for several reasons. It remains to be seen if the House will take any action.

Interestingly these "titivating" NDAs rarely last. The news gets out.
In Jeremy Clarkson's case he lifted the banning order himself. Continuance was futile once breached.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 05:16 PM

And...200!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 06:38 PM

"Green may not make your Chrsitmas card list, but he is entitled to the same protection of the court as anyone else."

Quite. But Hain has demonstrated that all the money in the world can't buy you immunity from the public gaze and, ultimately, from justice. He's done us an amazing service. And if you haven't got the money you can't buy the protection that Green could buy. He spent millions on those NDAs and on getting that injunction. So your "anyone else" point falls.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 07:04 PM

So in your view, so long as the man you detest got outed, the far more important issue raised concerning comity is an irrelevance.


Even for you that is a bizarre stance to take.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 07:49 PM

The far more important issue here is justice for his victims. Sir Phil has two billion and is not facing charges. He's cracked it. Can't exactly say the same for his victims, can we?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 03:27 AM

If his "victims" have information that would lead to charges in a criminal court then my understanding is that the terms of the Non Disclosure Agreement would be void. But this is a grey area. Is taking the pieces of silver regarded as compensation for suffering alleged wrongdoing? A contract cannot stand if hiding criminality.

As I quoted several days ago:
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has issued a warning notice reminding law firms that non-disclosure agreements must never be misused as a way of covering up sexual misconduct in the workplace. This comes at a time when sexual harassment claims across all kinds of industries are rife. As a matter of law, NDAs cannot be used to prevent the victim from making protected disclosures to relevant bodies.

We have many wild and lurid allegations about his character and behaviour but nothing of substance. There are several here happy to abuse the man because they do not like him and have read unsavoury allegations about him in the gutter press. Do we have any proof?
   
Do the alleged "victims" feel the money is of more importance than seeking redress in the courts for alleged criminal activity.
The "victim" can report suspected criminal acts. If such acts are considered to have wings the crown prosecution service will make it fly.

Also the lawyers drafting such agreements would also be liable to sanction. It makes a person wonder if the wrongdoing being hidden is more causing him embarrassment, rather than actual criminality.
As yet all these procedures are in Civil, not criminal court. Some here should perhaps consider why that is!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Mr Red
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 03:27 AM

Sir Phil has two billion and is not facing charges.

That 2 billion has taken a hit, and it will, no doubt, be passed on to his employees wrapped in a P45. (redundancy notice translated into American).

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 03:35 AM

"but he is entitled to the same protection of the court as anyone else.""
Utter nonsense.
There are very few who can afford to buy silencing injunctions and force employees to sign silencing documents - nor influence an army of cap-doffers to flood threads with his innocence
LINKED CASES
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 03:36 AM

A P45 is not a 'Redundancy Notice'.

It's the form of notification to HMRC by an employer of 'Details of Employee Leaving Work', and is issued no matter what the circumstances - exactly the same form if the employee leaves voluntarily as if employment is terminated, for whatever reason, by the employer.

For the sake of accuracy and clarity, and because 49-1/2 years working in Management Accountancy has caused me to be pedantic about such matters. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Howard Jones
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 04:14 AM

"I've heard no fuss whatsoever about any breach of sub judice anywhere except on this forum." Really? It's been reported that he's been criticised by the Speaker of the House of Lords and the Attorney General, among others, and I've seen several articles in the papers.

I agree there was a good chance that Green's court case would not have succeeded. I think it is very unlikely that the Telegraph would have risked writing a piece based solely on information from people bound by NDAs, it is more likely that it came from others who did not owe him a duty of confidentiality. But that was Green's problem. In the meantime, until the case could be heard and a decision made, it was entirely appropriate that the Telegraph should not publish.

The question of charges is a red herring. It is far from clear that Green's appalling behaviour reached the level of actual criminality, or that if it did that there was sufficient evidence to prove it before a court. But if there were, it seems to the be case that an NDA could not be used to block a complaint to the police. Instead the victims' redress has been to take quite large sums of Sir Philip's money.

I think it is very likely that Green's name would have come out sooner or later, if only through leaks from sources outside the jurisdiction of the English courts. All Hain has done is brought this forward, and in using his position in parliament to do so he has set up an unfortunate challenge to the authority of the courts. I think in different circumstances you would be very concerned about a parliamentarian interfering with the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 04:18 AM

"but he is entitled to the same protection of the court as anyone else.""
Utter nonsense.
Is that your commie indoctrination coming to the fore that enables you to spout such utter drivel

nor influence an army of cap-doffers to flood threads with his innocence

More little jimmie lies, distortion and defamation.
Here is a challenge for you to run away from yet again. Demonstrate the validity of your allegations.
Who is flooding threads with his innocence?

When you learn to construct cogent arguments without all the flimflam
you may receive less of a mocking response.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 04:58 AM

"Is that your commie indoctrination coming to the fore that enables you to spout such utter drivel"
Sorry to have caught you on the hop - if you can't manage a couple of hours more in bed, five minutes with the head between the knees might help
Are you really so stupid as not to realise that your abusive outbursts only serve to underline your stupidity?
If you have no answer have the honesty to admit it
Your behaviour only serves to typify the 'Sir Phil' bullying society we are ruled by
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:20 AM

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

But little jimmie suggests he knows better!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:28 AM

"But little jimmie suggests he knows better!"
You raeally can't control yourself, can you
We live in a world were "all are equal but some of us are far more equal than are others"
All you need to do is explain how the rest of us can buy or use our influence to have silencing orders isued on our behalf and hw we can enforce non disclosure contracts to silence complaints on our behaviour - it really is that simple
Take your insecurity elsewhere if you can't manage a half-decent behaviour
Grow up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:36 AM

THI IS THE CAT THAT WOULD HAVE REMAINED IN THE BAG had Peter Hain not had the balls to rip it open
Whether this prick is brought to justice or not, at least the establishment have had their noses rubbed in their own shit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:49 AM

http://www.meaby.co.uk/category/legal-news/
A reasoned summary:
If ministers take issue at the law of privacy, for example, then they should reform those laws through statute and not sabotage the court’s interpretation of the very law that parliament itself enacted.
An interesting example towards the end of the linked article:

In 1996, A’s MP specifically referred to the names of A and her children and their address whilst making unsubstantiated and derogatory comments about them in a parliamentary debate. A sued the government. In A v UK 1998, judges at the European Court of Human Rights acknowledged the importance of parliamentary privilege but also stated that freedom of speech should uphold the principle of fairness. In doing so, they appeared to raise the question of a means of compensation for those defamed or whose privacy has been invaded.

"It is time that the UK adopts a more measured approach to parliamentary privilege than that given by Article 9 of universal protection so that there is greater control over what is currently an unchecked power."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:10 AM

A court that grants a pointless injunction merely brings the justice system into disrepute. The injunction was pointless because there are victims not bound by NDAs who are perfectly free to speak out and name Green (presumably as long as they can overcome likely threats and bullying). Gagging a newspaper whilst they are free to speak out is absurd. The injunction went against the public interest.

As for this: "We have many wild and lurid allegations about his character and behaviour but nothing of substance. There are several here happy to abuse the man because they do not like him and have read unsavoury allegations about him in the gutter press."

That is simply nonsense. Green's reputation as a workplace bully, as a man who makes very poor business decisions (BHS, anybody?), as a man who serially creams off billions from his businesses to increase his already-boundless wealth, and as a very poor person-manager, goes back a very long way, well before this latest outrage. We do not "abuse" him because we don't like him (as you do to Corbyn, and YOU have very little to go on with regard to that, though it doesn't seem to stop you), but because people like him need to be fully exposed in the public interest. Odd that you, of all people, have the brass neck to castigate the "gutter press" when that section of the media, along with the worst gutter-blog on the web, provides your personal favourite source of first resort.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:26 AM

Is a business a humanitarian concern, or a device to load your pockets?
Green's personal wealth suggests to me his business decisions are superb. You are confusing generating personal wealth with humanitarian concerns. If you wish to slag the man you could at least try to be accurate.

You condemn Guido as a gutter blog. Is that because you cannot find fault with his factual content.

Is this confusion between source and content some kind of leftie plague for which there is no cure?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:27 AM

All this is only a small part of a wider issue of course
Women Google employees around the world staged a walkout yesterday when it emerged that former executive, Andy Rubin
was given a golden handshake of €9 million when he was forced to resign for sexually harassing women members of his staff (covered up)
Enough really is enough in the way women are used by high-powered executives

I love the photo of Green posing next to Harvey Weinstein in the Daily Mail link - probably comparing their conquests and planning their next ones
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:30 AM

A court that grants a pointless injunction merely brings the justice system into disrepute.

That is merely your view. Three senior law lords disagreed.
It was a temporary injunction not a pointless one.

The thwarted court case would have decided if it was pointless, or had merit.
This is a job for the judiciary to decide, not a grandstanding unelected member of the upper house.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:39 AM

Well let's not keep going round in circles.

Perhaps you could tell me what was "superb" about his running of BHS and his sale of the company for a quid to a serial bankrupt and the way the company's pension scheme was run. Pity we can't ask any of the people who lost their jobs how "superb" they thought he was.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:46 AM

By the way Steve. From the gutter blog because the MSM will play it down:
Exclusive: The Met Police has begun a criminal investigation into some of the cases contained within an internal Labour party document detailing cases of anti-Semitism obtained by LBC back in September.
Police launch criminal probe into Labour anti-Semitism allegations
Financial Times 2 hours ago

Met police opens criminal inquiry into Labour antisemitism claims
The Guardian 3 hours ago

Police probe into anti-Semitism claims against Labour members
BBC News

Remember Guido got it first

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:49 AM

Pity we can't ask any of the people who lost their jobs how "superb" they thought he was.

Was his action illegal?
Is he running a charity?

Remember it is his money to conserve. Labour spends other peoples!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 07:02 AM

"Is he running a charity?"
Using money to buff up his image and reduce his taxes springs to mind
FOR ALL GREEN'S CHARITABLE DONATIONS HE MIGHT JUST AS WELL DONATE NOTHING
If he is being maligned the press would be full of praise in his defence from members of his staff - especially women
Women have led this campaign agaist him fro day one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 07:28 AM

MORE FACTS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 08:43 AM

It has been writ large all over the news all morning that the Labour Party is not being investigated. It is all about individual members on social media, and the party is extremely keen that nothing is hidden from view. Thing is, you are trying to make this about what YOU want it to be about, not what it is ACTUALLY about. That is precisely what Guido does and he's well known for attracting gull-ible headless chickens who swallow his every word then swan around parroting out his nonsense on forums like this one. It's about time you gave him the bird. He's doing you harm. You're losing your independence of thought.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 08:55 AM

I welcomed this too Steve
Antisemitism has no place in any political party - Labour included
The Labour leadership took steps immediately when the accusations were mad - the Tories have yet to even acknowledge the complaints of serious Islamophobia in their party (made about three years ago) - another case of double standards
I don't envisage any of their supporters being too concerned about that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 10:39 AM

"It has been writ large all over the news all morning that the Labour Party is not being investigated."

I suggest you read my words as opposed to those quoted by the Times and thee leftie rag the Guardian.

It pays to double check before jumping in with both feet.
The former action would be the action of a true scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 12:14 PM

Yes I did read your words. You said "exclusive." As the thing has been reported by every man and his dog, you'll excuse me for not hanging on to any of your other words either.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 12:40 PM

Once again you fall into a hole. At 2.26 guido posted his news. At that time the news was exclusive.
Anyway that is a by the by.

I see Guido picked up on my email or p'raps is coincidence. Anyway no matter.

"Peter Hain has heavily defended his use of Parliamentary Privilege to name Philip Green as the businessman behind the injunction against the Telegraph. But was he even allowed to do so?

Under a resolution on Parliamentary Privilege which the House of Lords adopted on 11 May 2000, Peers cannot use their Parliamentary Privilege to refer to any cases which are currently Sub judice – i.e. undergoing active legal proceedings – unless they have secured the approval of the Lords Speaker to do so at least 24 hours in advance. It also stipulates that “the exercise of the Speaker’s discretion may not be challenged in the House.” Did Hain seek formal approval from Lord Fowler in advance?"
If he uses Parliamentary tittle tattle as his sources GUY FAWKES NIGHT MAY PALE BY COMPARISON, should this be a general feeling around Westminster.

https://order-order.com/2018/11/02/hain-allowed-use-parliamentary-privilege-break-philip-green-injunction/
The comments are an education, no matter what side of the fence!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 12:48 PM

"...Thought you objected to having news rejected because of where it was published
You really do claim privileges for yourself that you won't allow to others - just,like the shit you have broken your neck to defend
Jim, Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 12:59 PM

"...Thought you objected to having news rejected because of where it was published"

Time! date! thread! Where I have stated such a ridiculous thing.If you would be so kind

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 01:00 PM

You're getting very, very boring on this. What makes it all the more tedious is that you don't research things properly before you post. So round and round and round you go.

Far more interesting is a piece from the Guardian website today which describes Sir Phil's obnoxious workplace behaviour. Here's lumps out of it. Enjoy (then tell us that they're all liars because Green is such a superb businessman and, well, it's only in the leftie Guardian anyhoo:

Philip Green allegations: 'It's not banter, it's a climate of fear,' claim staff

Exclusive: employees allege mogul groped, threatened and humiliated workers

Owen Jones and Archie Bland

Published: 16:02 GMT Friday, 02 November 2018
Current and former employees of Sir Philip Green’s Arcadia Group have come forward to allege a climate of fear, bullying and harassment at the company and dismiss the mogul’s claims that his behaviour was merely “banter”.

In interviews carried out by the Guardian since Green rejected claims of abusive behaviour and insisted “there was never any intent to be offensive”, Arcadia workers claimed his conduct amounted to “bullying” and said its offices were subject to “a culture of secrecy”...

....One person who said they had been repeatedly verbally abused and screamed at said in their view the idea that Green’s management style was good-humoured was untrue. “‘Banter’ suggests some kind of exchange, or jocular language, but it isn’t,” they claimed. “It’s one-way, it’s intense, you have to keep your mouth shut.”

In the interviews, the former and current employees alleged there was a workplace culture that ranged from the verbally abusive to the surreal, claiming that Green:

• Harangued and threatened people in meetings with expletive-filled diatribes that left his staff feeling humiliated.

• Benefited from an atmosphere where employees were expected to “grin and bear” his treatment without complaint.

• Flew off the handle in an unpredictable fashion, on one occasion using homophobic language to describe a marketing display involving male models that he then tore down.

• Repeatedly grabbed the bottoms of senior female members of staff.

One worker said Green was seen as immune to normal workplace rules. “The large part of why he’s never held to account – he’s seen as the owner, that’s the beginning and end of it,” they said. “If you don’t like it you know where to go.”...

...Last week, the Guardian reported that Green had made a number of seven-figure payouts to employees who alleged the tycoon had sexually harassed or bullied them. His alleged behaviour was reported after Green was identified as the businessman who obtained an injunction against the Daily Telegraph, preventing the reporting of allegations of harassment that had been the subject of non-disclosure agreements.

He has denied claims of “unlawful sexual or racist behaviour” and, in an interview with the Mail on Sunday, said: “I’ve been in business for more than 40 years. There has obviously from time to time been some banter and a bit of humour, but as far as I’m concerned there was never any intent to be offensive.”

He added: “I’m being used as target practice when there is zero [evidence] that anyone has turned up with.”

But one person who spoke to the Guardian suggested the reality of working for Green was very different. “I saw so much bullying behaviour,” the employee claimed.

They said they had seen him repeatedly slapping employees’ bottoms. They also said Green had been known to throw money at staff in meetings.

They said the atmosphere in the Arcadia head office “changed as soon as [Green] stepped on the floor – everyone was silent, scared to speak. Nobody wanted to be the person where he finds something on the desk and makes a big thing of it.”

Another worker said Green’s behaviour had remained the same for many years. On one occasion more than a decade ago, they alleged, Green said that he would throw the worker out of the window during a meeting. “He asked me if I could fly. I said no, and he said that’s a pity because I’m going to throw you out,” the worker said.

Green still flew into expletive-ridden tirades repeatedly, the worker said. In one recent meeting, they said, Green stormed in and flew into a rage at a senior employee: “He was shouting, ‘What the fuck are you thinking? Why didn’t you tell me? What a waste of time.’” The behaviour was seen as so extreme that eventually another senior employee intervened. On another occasion, a different source said, one senior employee was sent out of a meeting on to a balcony in the pouring rain because their results were considered disappointing.

But they suggested Green did not appear to be concerned about the consequences of his management style. “You hear a lot about people crying,” they said. “I think he takes delight in it, he likes to be seen to have an effect.”...

...On another occasion, a source was present when Green saw an advertising campaign featuring young male models during a presentation in head office and reacted badly. He is alleged to have said: “Take down this gay shit, this isn’t the gay shit I want in the building.” He then started to rip the posters down from the display, the source claimed, before telling others to help because some were out of his reach.

Green has felt at liberty to pinch the cheeks of men and women who work for him, the worker said, and regularly used patronising language when speaking to women. “When he swears in meetings he says, ‘Please excuse my French, girls,’” a source said. “It’s language from the 1970s.”

The source said that on one occasion, Green refused to stop calling a female employee “love” and “darling” and use her name instead, as she had asked...

...They said one employee was recently told to “put on your game face” when under attack from Green, which they added was a common phrase used in feedback. The employee summarised the message as: “Just grin and bear it like you enjoy it. What a ridiculous thing to ask.”

Asked why the claims against Green had not previously been exposed or questions raised over his behaviour, the former workers said people’s concern for their jobs and a climate of deference and fear were to blame.

People were unwilling to be named, one source said, “because no one is willing to lose their jobs. You can’t take a stand.”

Luvly feller!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 01:08 PM

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-parliaments-46071159

BBC 7 hours ago.What are the limits to parliamentary free speech?
"When the Labour peer, Lord Hain, used parliamentary privilege to name Sir Philip Green as the businessman at the centre of a legal action about harassment, did he open a parliamentary Pandora's Box?"
"This week, I attended a meeting convened by a newish think-tank, the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, where an audience mostly composed of senior lawyers, judges and constitutional scholars, thought Lord Hain's actions an outrage.

"It cannot be right," thundered superlawyer Lord Pannick, that any parliamentarian could simply set aside the rulings of a court and name a name that it had ordered should not be disclosed.

Worse still, it might reveal details of a live court case, so breaking both the injunction and the sub judice rule, under which parliamentarians do not discuss actions before the courts.
Rare events

So should this right be curtailed in some way?

The first point to make is that these events are fairly rare. The last few years have seen a handful of cases, mostly involving the former Lib Dem MP, John Hemming, who in March 2011, used parliamentary privilege to reveal the existence of a super-injunction granted to former Royal Bank of Scotland chief Fred Goodwin and later mentioned Ryan Giggs as the footballer whose name was protected by another injunction.

The clerks of the Commons and Lords are kept aware of live court cases, so that they can alert the chair to prevent breaches - sometimes they will be forewarned; perhaps the MP or peer concerned will have attempted to put down a question or an EDM and been blocked from doing so.
Image copyright Reuters

But if not, they have to react pretty rapidly, or the name will be uttered, and broadcast live on BBC Parliament, and thence released into the wilds of the twittersphere, in a matter of seconds.

This kind of thing could become a problem.

There have been legal challenges to the use of parliamentary privilege in the European Court of Human Rights, but the ECHR has thus far always upheld the right of freedom of speech within a parliament; but there is also the implication that if a parliament fails to police the actions of members effectively, then the court might begin to look at this differently.

Were Sir Philip to bring an action saying Lord Hain had infringed his right to a fair trial, under Article 6 of the European Declaration, the result would be a rather interesting case.

How, then, might the Commons and the Lords deal with MPs or peers set on breaking the terms of an injunction, to name some name?

The current rules advise against such actions unless the parliamentarian in question "thinks it right". This is not exactly a high bar. Peers are also supposed to act "on their honour".

One suggestion on toughening up this system, made at the Bingham Centre meeting, was that an MP or peer contemplating breaking an injunction should discuss the idea with the Speaker or Lord Speaker, and could be open to some kind of disciplinary action if they went against their advice.

They would then have the chance to justify their action, perhaps before a committee, or maybe even the whole House. And at the end of the process there would have to be the possibility of a significant sanction - including suspension or expulsion.

Whether MPs or peers would be prepared to accept such a restriction, and vote through the rule changes needed to underpin it, is another question.
Seems like the BBC follows my line of reasoning. We are under starters orders. Will Hains fall at the first hurdle, WillGreen win the wager stakes?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 01:27 PM

Well Mark D'Arcy's piece contains a lot of surmise and very little substance. To take a couple of things: rules are rules, rules don't "suggest." And at this moment there is no suggestion that Green faces the prospect of a trial, so references to his chances of getting a "fair trial " being compromised are entirely specious. Laughable, actually. "You can't say anything about me because, well, you never know, at some point in the future somebody might put me on trial and it won't be fair." Hilarious. Even more so when you consider that the only thing that happened is that somebody gave his name away. Had Hain not existed, we'll all have known who this bad boy was by now, and quite right too. Now tell me what you think about the way he treats his employees. That would make a refreshing change.

Ps. Any idea what a " superlawyer" is? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 01:40 PM

Having seen the complaints made against him you still believe we should not be allowed to know his identity
Says everything about the Right that needs to be said
A culture of secretive bullying thugs -- but we already knew that, didn't we?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parliament-sexual-harassment-scandals-anonymity-mps-proposal-andrea-leadsom-a8456021.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 01:43 PM

Oops. What I meant was "rules are rules, rules don't "advise."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 01:45 PM


Ps. Any idea what a " superlawyer" is?

One who reacts badly to kryptonite?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 01:48 PM

I have no idea but I suspect Hains might be meeting a rake of them very shortly, and they will not be delivering Xmas cards.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 01:50 PM

I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 02:00 PM

Pannick He represented the Crown in the Supreme Court in establishing in 2010 that MPs accused of dishonestly claiming expenses were not entitled to the benefit of parliamentary privilege.

Sounds like a useful man

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 02:08 PM

Having seen the complaints made against him you still believe we should not be allowed to know his identity
Says everything about the Right that needs to be said
A culture of secretive bullying thugs -- but we already knew that, didn't we?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDG2m5hN1vo

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 02:20 PM

"Pannick He represented the Crown in the Supreme Court in establishing in 2010 that MPs accused of dishonestly claiming expenses were not entitled to the benefit of parliamentary privilege.

Sounds like a useful man"

Your final remark reveals that you are confused about this. More homework needed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 02:48 PM

Unlike yours shaw, my thinking processes are lucid to the nth degree, carefully honed in a scientific environment, not a schoolboy one, such as yours.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 02:58 PM

" carefully honed in a scientific environment"
Is that where youi picked up your childish abuse ?

Your link
And your inane response to points regarding the abuse of women
Not very good at this, are you?
Even your abusive behaviour is borrowed from elsewhere - a pale echo of a long-expelled member
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 03:18 PM

" carefully honed in a scientific environment"
Is that where youi picked up your childish abuse ?

No but I did learn to spell and proofread. A skill sadly lacking in your case.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 04:34 PM

You see, Iains, the point is that Pannick established that cheating parliamentarians, apropos of fake expenses claims, should not be able to claim parliamentary privilege to cover their dishonesty. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the current context of parliamentary privilege being used to expose nasty people outside parliament who are trying to keep themselves out of the public eye. Your remark that Pannick "could be a useful man" in the current context betrays your confusion. It's perfectly obvious that you didn't really know what you were talking about. Naturally, you being you, you'll try to use bluster and insult to hide your embarrassment. Some of us are a little more mature.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 04:56 PM

"No but I did learn to spell and proofread. A skill sadly lacking in your case."

Really? Then you may care to go back and proofread your own posts at 12.59 and 02.00pm (among many others, unfortunately. Details on request). Riddled with errors, they are. If you need help, just give me a shout. I don't charge.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:03 PM

It is easy to see who has run out of argument and emptied the toy box.
Must be time for a little nap!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 07:08 PM

Nope, I've given you the argument. Ad nauseam, actually, pretty fully as it happens over lots of posts, and you have my Guido- and grauniad-free opinions, as comprehensively as you like. I'm sorry that you feel so embarrassed. All-in-all, it hasn't been your finest day. Has it, Iains? Better luck tomorrow!

By the way, my offer to you of free proofreading has expired. It troubled me, on reflection, that, in your case, there was so much to do. Details on request, going back for as long as you like. But if you'd like an obligation-free trial, just let me know. Obviously, as is the way of things these days, I can't promise that you won't be subsequently bombarded by my ads. Aren't Google bastards!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:21 AM

I shall continue my nap until events further evolve. Shaw obviously has nothing of consequence to add. But that is largely the story of his life. Strict adherence to the "dogma" of the party line stifles original thought.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:37 AM

"No but I did learn to spell and proofread."
Tsk, tsk - reduced to typos
Easier than ideas, I suppose
Hope nobody drives over your Trollbridge while you're sleeping -

"Mental midget" (recap)
They always say first impressions of someone are the most reliable
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:38 AM

When people are reduced to criticising their opponents' spelling and grammar - people like Nitpicking Nigs and Iains the O.C. Insults - they are merely demonstrating the paucity of their arguments. Not even worth responding to, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 04:14 AM

"paucity"
You might have to explain what that word means - these people aren't exactly the brightest buttons on the uniform
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 04:22 AM

This seems to be the outcome of the TORY TELEGRAPH'S researches on this man IN FULL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 04:55 AM

Backwoodsman for the sake of accuracy it must be pointed out that our resident pedant started the craze. He in fact goes further and corrects grammar and use of English. I merely make a token attempt to redress the balance periodically.

Plenty of proof from his innumerable postings to prove the point.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 08:40 PM
Touché feelé, Dr Quelch. I'll let you off the extraneous full stop after "Dr" this time, as, for all I know, you may be one o' them thar yanks.

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:09 AM
"...not bringing to the students' attention" does indeed require the apostrophe. "Students'" here is the possessive case. Omitting the apostrophe betrays nothing less than a tendency towards the illiterate.

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:31 AM
People who think they know it all really annoy we who do.
Shouldn't that be "us what do?" :-)

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 10:40 AM
I was reprimanded by..... for saying that, "I am presently, an atheist."
Several things: your incorrect use of commas; your pretentious use of "presently" when better alternatives are available; and your apparent vacillation over whether you're an atheist or not. Apart from all that, it's fine.

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 19 Sep 17 - 05:08 AM
It's amusing to see that the posts of the two right-wingers here who moan about declining standards of literacy are themselves generally replete with errors of grammar and punctuation, not to speak of inelegant expression. They are also the people who sneer most at the errors of other people's posts. Ironic, eh?

Many other examples in plentiful threads!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 05:23 AM

Using typos have no place in this forum but it is you who struts your imagined superiority and constantly talks down to people, you always have - nobody else does that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 05:35 AM

I see little jimmie is provoking. Quelle surprise!

Anyway back to the thread.
Having carried out a lot of reading I have come to the tentative conclusion that had the temporary injunction been on a criminal case, then sub judice would occur.
As it is a civil case my understanding is that it is not subject to sub judice because each discrete component of the case is regarded as a separate entity. Therefore not regarded as ongoing Despite the fact it most obviously is. Whether contempt may apply has not been denied.

As the situation has created a lot of disquiet, especially among some senior members of the legal profession I find it incredible that the speaker of the House of Lords has made no comment.
No matter how the matter is regarded the courts had unfinished business, hence the interim injunction, and Hains thwarted their definitive ruling.
The position of both houses is clear. Actions that are proceeding through the courts will not be referred to specifically by members without permission of the respective speakers.
The fact that it was a civil case has muddied the waters and shown a major procedural gap in both houses. It is worth reiterating that the previous 2 cases referred to where injunctions were broken the court had finalised it's decision. This present situation is compounded by the fact the court had yet to reach a decision. This is a far more serious situation, not helped by Hain's conflict of interest, having been( past present and future I suspect)remunerated by the same solicitors acting for the Telegraph.

No matter what the outcome there is a procedural deficiency in both houses brought to light by this premature disclosure. The continued silence on the matter by the speaker and all others I find a cause for concern. Either Parliament addresses the problem or I am sure Mr Green will go for blood and force them to. As has been already the European courts are loath to get involved but if an abuse of human rights are proven, without adequate address, They will have no other option.

    It has all the trimmings for a spectacular constitutional firework display.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 06:04 AM

"I see little jimmie is provoking. Quelle surprise!"
I see your insecurity is surfacing again
Some people talk down to others because they believe themselves to be superior beings - others do so because they know they are not
Write that down and remember it
"The continued silence on the matter by the speaker and all others I find a cause for concern."
Perhaps they don't have your insight - how pompously arrogant can you get (or maybe you've just lifted it from Guido - or one of his ilk)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 06:38 AM

"The continued silence on the matter by the speaker and all others I find a cause for concern."
Perhaps they don't have your insight - how pompously arrogant can you get (or maybe you've just lifted it from Guido - or one of his ilk)
Jim Carroll

Perhaps they do not- Who can tell? But I suspect it is your massive chip on your shoulder and acute feeling of insecurity leading you to make your nasty little jibes.
Hardly my fault you lack the capacity to understand what is at stake.
It has been repeated often enough for you to have reached some slight glimmering of understanding. Maybe it is the bog water having a deleterious impact on you, or perhaps merely your rabid anglophobia shining through.
I also note 5 of your last six posts contain nothing germane to the thread. They are simply insults.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 07:04 AM

"Perhaps they do not- Who can tell?"
You've already said this - nobody knows whether Green will get away with his behaviour - it doesn't stop us from speculating on it now it has been revealed

One of my great heroes told the world what it needed to know, for which he was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment, eleven of those in solitary confinement
To the decent section of humanity he is a hero - to the Israelis he is a traitor

Recently you put up a blog from an extremist racist blogger
In it it described Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and equates him with Robert Mugabe
THe world now regards Mandela as a great hero - people who put up blogs like yours believe him to be "a terrorist" (Thatcher described him as such)

I suppose it all boils down to where you stand in the humanity stakes
You think this shit should be able to buy anonymity - which makes it clear where you do
Not reminiscent of allowing the survivors of Grenfell Tower to sleep rough rather than to "break the law" by allowing them to use vacant property
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 08:46 AM

On a similar note, BBC News Paul Gambaccini has secured a payout from the CPS over sexual assault charges.
Doubtless, if his name had never made it into the papers on this matter, he would have settled quietly. But his name was released, and he has spent 12 months with these allegations hanging over him.

If he had requested an injunction early on, to prevent the matter becoming freely available, I have no doubt that there would be some here claiming he was muzzling the press.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 09:28 AM

Nigel
If any of us here were accused of anything - anything at all, unless we 'bought an injunction, the press woukd be free to name us, no matter what danage it did to us
Thatis reall what this should be about
I'm sure you'll pass this off as "class envy" -some regard it as injustice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 09:33 AM

Recently you put up a blog from an extremist racist blogger
In it it described Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and equates him with Robert Mugabe

Where does a blog come from if not from a blogger. Care to demonstrate his racism? No doubt your usual response
I presume Mandela was on U.S. terrorist watch lists until 2008 for nicking the fairy off the Christmas tree.
Carrol you are an idiot. How many terrorist offences was he convicted of. Was he incarcerated on Robben Island for jaywalking?
(As the ANC went underground, Mandela became the head of the military wing of the African National Congress. In 1964, he was convicted of sabotage and treason, and wound up imprisoned until 1990.)

I suppose it all boils down to where you stand in the humanity stakes
You think this shit should be able to buy anonymity - which makes it clear where you do
Not reminiscent of allowing the survivors of Grenfell Tower to sleep rough rather than to "break the law" by allowing them to use vacant property

Typical little jimmie unfocused ignorant, insulting diatribe with zero facts to justify it as usual. Just frothing, verging on an incoherent rant

This must be your commie indoctrination to the fore again. You do not pick and choose what aspects of the law you wish to follow. You really are a backward little fellow are you not? Your basic understanding of every thing political is woefully deficient and a constant source of embarrassment to the rest of us.
Why do you constantly insist on chipping into adult discussion, when it is clear you are incapable of constructing a sentence to spell out the argument. You really are a trial and tribulation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 10:58 AM

Don't respond, Jim. Let him keep shitting in his own bed. He'll be gone soon.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 11:10 AM

Why bother Steve - he'll just wak away from any reply - why break the habit of a lifetime ?
All these responses are archived - it takes a certain level of individual to deny them
I lve the way one of the great heroes of the twentieth century has suddenly becoime a terrorist though - that puts all these arg8ments squarely where they should be, though it will be denied in a few days
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:09 PM

I can't believe all these sanctimonious defences of Green either, Jim. To me, it adds up to misogyny.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:43 PM

I suppose pointing to any evidence suggesting anyone supports Green would be a forlorn hope? I see support for the rule of law.


Sanctimonious defence of Green? misogyny?
Can we have a few examples to back up your assertions?



"I lve the way one of the great heroes of the twentieth century has suddenly becoime a terrorist though"

I think he was a convicted terrorist first. An Inconvenient truth I am sure.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 03:51 PM

One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. Whether you like it or not, squaddie, Nelson Mandela is rightly regarded by virtually every government in the world as the latter, as well as a Statesman of the highest order.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 04:11 PM

Whether you like it or not, squaddie, Nelson Mandela is rightly regarded by virtually every government in the world as the latter, as well as a Statesman of the highest order.
He was a convicted terrorist first (Documented fact, as previously explained)

squaddie? I think not, but continue if it helps you feel better.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 04:48 PM

You behave like a barrack-room bully, you denigrate and insult those who challenge you - the tactics of a barrack-room bully squaddie. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

Nelson Mandela was 'convicted' by a racist, apartheid regime, and the conviction was and is invalid as far as any decent, right-thinking human being is concerned. You would probably have felt very comfortable there.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 05:35 PM

Nelson Mandela was 'convicted' by a racist, apartheid regime, and the conviction was and is invalid as far as any decent, right-thinking human being is concerned. You would probably have felt very comfortable there.

Purely anecdotal but my half brother lived there for decades around that time, loved having the servants and such like but left when apartheid ended, complaining about how badly he has been treated ever since.

I am sure it is entirely coincidental but he is the arch-Brexiteer of the family.

It is safe to say we don't see eye to eye on many things.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 18 - 05:58 PM

I had two uncles in Smith's Rhodesia, DMcG. My experience of them reflects yours exactly, though they're both long dead now. Not nice men.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 02:38 AM

"Nelson Mandela was 'convicted' by a racist, apartheid regime, "
aste of time responding to this Baccie - I'm beginning to think he only posts out o a craving for attention - he'll deny having said this when it's mentioned again
HOW THE WORLD REGARDS TERRORISTS

Probably the wrog colour for some people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 02:39 AM

Couple of typos for you to cling onto there Iains
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 03:39 AM

'convicted' by a racist, apartheid regime, "
for being a member of an illegal organisation that murdered many people.


As a total aside I had an 18th floor flat in the gardens area of Capetown for a couple of years, back in the 70's. The view from the window was straight over Capetown and the bay towards Robben Island.

Now for a few inconvenient facts:
Mandela was arrested on 5th August 1962 and accused of plotting to overthrow the government. In 1964, at the age of 46, he was given a life sentence.

Umkhonto we Sizwewe, meaning ("Spear of the Nation") was the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), co-founded by Nelson Mandela in the wake of the Sharpeville massacre. Its mission was to fight against the South African government.

South African police statistics indicate that, in the period 1976 to 1986, approximately 130 people were killed by guerrillas. Of these, about thirty were members of various security forces and one hundred were civilians. Of the civilians, 40 were white and 60 black,
There was a bombing campaign, landmine campaign, the use of torture and executions.

All a matter of public record.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe
https://omalley.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02424/04lv02730/05lv02918/06lv02938.htm

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 04:04 AM

Mandela is now recognised by all by those who supported the racist, terrorist Apartheid regime as a freedom fighter - denigrating him as a "terrorist" as Thatcher did, is an unbelievably swing to the right
All freedom fighters have been labelled "terrorists" by those who oppose freedom nothing new here
Mandela formed the ANC to fight Aapartheid - they were at war with the South African regimee
If they were terrorists, so is every nation who fought such wars - from those who fought Britain to free America to the Jewish People who founded the state of israel - "terrorists" all - even the Chindits and the French Resistance - feckin' ridiculous

A bit long and complex, but TRY THIS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 04:18 AM

The only argument is whether or not he WAS a terrorist. There is documented proof he headed a terrorist organisation that murdered people.

A person would have to be in denial, ignorant or exceptionally naive to not understand that many former terrorists go on to become statesmen, some highly respected.

If you took the time to construct accurate posts your inaccuracies, or attempted rewriting of history would not be picked up on.

If they were terrorists, so is every nation who fought such wars - from those who fought Britain to free America to the Jewish People who founded the state of israel - "terrorists" all - even the Chindits and the French Resistance - feckin' ridiculous

How quaint!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 04:23 AM

"How quaint!"
Why - did they not resort to terrorist activities ?

The document, which you obviously have no intention of reading, points out that there is no officially agreed definition of 'Terrorism' and that the term is being regularly used to support policies that would otherwise be regarded as despotic - pretty well as you are using it here
How disgusting
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 04:55 AM

Time to move back on topic, I think we gaot Iain's message - 'It's ok for an extermely wealthy man to terrorise his staff and sexually harass women but it's "terrorism" to fight APARTHEID
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 05:34 AM

Freedom fighter, terrorist,revolutionary. Who cares? The label attached depends on the side of the political fence it is being viewed from.
The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" originated during the French Revolution of the late 18th century but gained mainstream popularity during the U.S. presidency of Ronald. It was also applied to the activities of Irgun in the late 40's
Interestingly the Malayan Emergency
             the Mau Mau emergency
             the Cyprus emergency. I do not believe the word terrorist was used.
I would be quite happy to accept a definition of a terrorist as being an irregular army in opposition to the Internationally recognised government.

I really do not understand your problem. Mandela's convictions are there for all to see. The activities of his organisation clearly encompass acts that any rational person would accept as terrorism.
Trying to use semantics to argue a flawed man should be sanctified is plainly nonsense.
    Why can you not accept what he demonstrably was in his early life.

What he became, and represented in his later life, is another matter entirely.

I believe that Mandela alone made the transition in South Africa relatively painless and had a tremendous impact on the peaceful evolution of modern South Africa. Without him it would have been a blood bath. I was actually there when the major riots occurred and saw the subsequent chinks slowly open in the apartheid policy. How much of that subsequent change was caused by Mandela's party and how much was driven by the external changes in Mozambique, Angola and Rhodesia is a moot point, but without Mandela presiding over the changeover, the outcome would have been very different.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 05:40 AM

Time to move back on topic, I think we gaot Iain's message - 'It's ok for an extermely wealthy man to terrorise his staff and sexually harass women but it's "terrorism" to fight APARTHEID
Jim Carroll         

I've studied pathological liars, and anything they say, they believe, and that's one of the reasons they're so convincing, because they have no connection with the truth. It's a dead issue. It's like they're color-blind to the truth. So anything that comes out of their mouths is their reality.

Jane Velez-Mitchell

He is not wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 05:49 AM

"He is not wrong!"
I'm sure you meant "she"
No doubt you would describe her as an "animal rights terrorist" had you bothered to check who she was rather than scooping up a convenient quote
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 06:13 AM

He she? Has the measure of the man. I wonder just how many times I have asked you to back up your constant derogatory comments with proof?
Cannot or will not I ask myself.

If you are not an inveterate liar, defend yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 06:49 AM

" I wonder just how many times I have asked you to back up your constant derogatory comments with proof?"
Whenever you have I have responded (I make a point of doing so) and you walked away without acknowledgement
A fine example is my pointing out the police would have investigated Heath for Paedophilia - the rest was silence
What exactlyare you accusing me of lyin about now ?
I also make a point of not telling lies - seems pointless to do so
Fire away
You say you don't care who you accuse of being a terrorist - fine - most of us do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 03:48 AM

I also make a point of not telling lies - seems pointless to do so

What is this then?
I think we gaot Iain's message - 'It's ok for an extermely wealthy man to terrorise his staff and sexually harass women

Care to quote my actual words to back up your pack of lies ?

.seems pointless to do so. You are a nasty piece of work. You deliberately bend, twist, take out of context, misquote and use any other device to blacken anyone who disagrees with you. You are a constant toxic, corrosive, noxious presence on this forum. Do I need a mad eye Moody to defend against your constant slurs?

Anne Widdecombe presents a position I totally agree with.

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ann-widdecombe/1039119/uk-latest-comment-ann-widdecombe-naming-philip-green-cowardi
"Peter Hain decided the law did not apply to him and instead of having the courage to name the man in a situation where he could be challenged he chose instead to shelter behind parliamentary privilege.
That is cowardly not brave.
I am not defending Sir Philip Green.
I am defending the supremacy of law and anybody who does not understand the difference should go back to school."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 04:12 AM

"'It's ok for an extremely wealthy man to terrorise his staff and sexually harass women"
If you are not arguing this, what exactly are you saying ?
This feller has been allowed to buy an injunction silencing the media - you refuse to respond to that
Articles like that in the Independent have discussed in detail why this is damaging to press freedom and brings the law into disrepute - you refuse to respond to that
Pater Hain used a privilege granted to him by his position - you abuse him for doing so
You say "e'll see" whether he is disciplined for it - the rest of us say "we'll see if Green the Groper is punished for his behaviour.
You are attacking hai for telling us what wee need to know - that a billionair shopkeeper has been acused of abusing, groping and bullying his staff
Why is it cowardly to tell us who he is - would you defend the rest of us if we were named as "the accused" - 'course you wouldn't
If you are not defending Green you are defending a law that protects all privileged people
Quoting one of the most extreme of Thatcher's thugs changes nothing

Now - what are these lies you say I have told (not just this opinion I offered here - you suggest I am a serial liar) - nor do I sliur - I leave that to serial childish insulters
I don't expect either an apology or a withdrawal - I never do from some people, but don't do it again or you will be sent to bed without any tea
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 04:31 AM

As Anne Widdecombe said:
I am defending the supremacy of law and anybody who does not understand the difference should go back to school."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 04:45 AM

"I am defending the supremacy of law "
If a law doesn't include all it needs removing not defending and when cases like this arise they need exposing
ou perist in talking down to people - given your performance here it makes you look somewhat silly - pack it in or stop whining about being insulted - your behaviour attracts it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 06:29 AM

"Peter Hain decided the law did not apply to him..."

Sorry, Anne, but he didn't "decide" any such thing. It's just the ways things are. Parliamentary privilege is a democratic protection that must be defended. Even when you disagree with how it's been properly used.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 06:43 AM

"If a law doesn't include all it needs removing not defending and when cases like this arise they need exposing"

The fact you do not like a particular law is not going to change it.
You probably do not like the fact Tommy Robinson was released from his bail conditions today.
You could invert your argument and ask: Why was Robinson jailed for alleged contempt while Hain is allowed to skulk behind Parliamentary privilege. It is merely your opinion that the law is non inclusive. The law lords would shit allover your argument.
As has been said many times only Parliament can change laws not a posturing bog dweller.

By the way I do not talk down to people. If what I say makes you feel inferior perhaps you should change the way you think.

Still awaiting your evidence to demonstrate you are not a liar, bluster don't hack it!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 06:54 AM

"The fact you do not like a particular law is not going to change it."
Nothing to do with what any of us "like" - if a law is unfair, it is unfair and needs to be either changed or opposed
If scum like Robinson are freed by law - fine
If they offend again, they should be banged up again and previous convictions should be taken into consideration

"posturing bog dweller."
Racist shite is what Robinson was put away for - if you are not careful you might end up sharing a cell

"By the way I do not talk down to people"
No you don't - you try to - that's what makes your insults pathetic and you're whingeing about being insulted hilarious

"Still awaiting your evidence to demonstrate you are not a liar"
Still awaiting your examples of my "lying" - you should read Kafka's 'The Trial' sometime
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 09:51 AM

"...while Hain is allowed to skulk behind Parliamentary privilege."

Nope. He used a constitutional right, within the rule of law, that is available to members of both houses and which can be a valuable obstacle to attempts to subvert democracy. There was no skulking. In fact, Hain has been completely open and full-on. In his opinion he was a exposing a known bully and sex pest who he thought needed to be exposed and who he felt was being protected by a bad injunction. So you disagree. Just say you disagree and stop trying to kid us that he is skulking or being cowardly. He has actually stuck his head above the parapet. And, as an aside, just console yourself that he's a far better man than the man he's exposed. But you don't agree. You think that a serial bully and sex pest is more virtuous. Grand.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 10:48 AM

You still carefully ignore the main issue. Hains thwarted the right of the judiciary to make a definitive ruling. .

"You think that a serial bully and sex pest is more virtuous. Grand. "

Care to point out where I have stated that? Are you going to waffle and evade like your little mate, or man up and admit you made it all up.

As Anne Widdecombe said:
"I am defending the supremacy of law and anybody who does not understand the difference should go back to school."
That has always been my position and you can find it stated consistently in my posts.

I wonder if the injunction was repeated under Scottish Law. If not Hains might have been able to contact a Scottish Newspaper and break the story anonymously. But that would have stopped Hains grandstanding and perhaps not succeeded in deflecting attention away from the renewed accusations of antisemitism within certain of the Labour Party.
I wonder where the real truth lies?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 11:50 AM

"Are you going to waffle and evade like your little mate"
You relly can't stop yourself, can you?
Personal and racist abuse
You have avoided every point made, as oyu have the request for examples of lying

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 12:02 PM

It's 'Hain', singular.

Dead easy innit, this nitpicking?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 12:15 PM

No sensible argument or responses off the three stooges. Must be time for another little nap,

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 12:21 PM

" Must be time for another little nap,"
Easy peasy - innit lads - he's neither as bright or amusing as those he attempts to imitate - not even entertaining
And this sprinting for cover is getting to be a habit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 12:54 PM

Now ladies, what are we going to do now the brat's safely tucked up in bed - who's got the cooking sherry ?
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 03:46 AM

Labour peer Peter Hain has been placed under formal investigation for allegedly failing to disclose a conflict of interest when he used Parliamentary privilege to air allegations against Sir Philip Green.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6611501/Labour-peer-faces-conflict-probe-airing-allegations-against-Sir-Philip-Green.ht