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.