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.