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.