 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Sir' Philip Green
|
|
|
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." 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! |
