Sir Philip Green accused of clawing back £35million from the collapse

[sheffbag]

Why was he wrong to do so?

 

Because regardless of who it is and what they have done, The MP has effectively ruled that he is more important than a high court judge and set a precedent effectively making high court injunctions invalid if they as MP's decide to name someone.

[Lockdoctor]

Why was he wrong to do so?

Because he has used Parliamentary privilege to undermine High Court Judges.

[Top Cats Hat]

Because regardless of who it is and what they have done, The MP has effectively ruled that he is more important than a high court judge and set a precedent effectively making high court injunctions invalid if they as MP's decide to name someone.

 

Not more important than a high court judge, but simply takes a different view to that high court judge and is the unusual position of being able to express that difference.

 

Everyone has the right to be protected from spurious claims and if this was the case I doubt there would have been a desire to reveal the name. What is different here is that not only was there multiple claims of misconduct but in some of these cases Green paid substantial sums to the victims in exchange for signing non disclosure agreements. In this case there is a demonstrable public interest in this story being told.

 

Peter Hain was acting in the interests of the public rather than a legal system which allows the very rich advantages that the rest of us don't have.

 

Fair play to him!

[truman]

Everyone has the right to be protected from spurious claims and if this was the case I doubt there would have been a desire to reveal the name.

 

Really? It sems that any claim of this sort,spurious or not , gets the full attention of the press...

[EUCLID11]

The high court judges will have had good reasons to grant the injunctions. Peter Hain was wrong to name Sir Philip Green in Parliament.

 

Can you think of a good reason ?? I can't. Peter Hains actions were obviously a last resort. Philip Green is a rather unsavoury character who has very few morals. Stealing pensions is bad enough. He lives the Donald Trump lifestyle, he's super rich and thinks he can walk on water. Accusations have been made and Mister Green should deal with them.....in public.

More power to Peter Hains elbow.

[Top Cats Hat]

Really? It sems that any claim of this sort,spurious or not , gets the full attention of the press...

 

I agree, but I think it was the NDA's that made this case different.

 

I doubt that an MP or Lord would stick their neck out and use parliamentary privilege in the case of an unsupported allegation, simply to allow a salacious story to appear in the Sun/Star/Mail.

[Lockdoctor]

Really? It sems that any claim of this sort,spurious or not , gets the full attention of the press...

A good point well made. The front pages of today's newspapers have effectively judged him to be a guilty man.

 

---------- Post added 26-10-2018 at 11:50 ----------

 

Can you think of a good reason ?? I can't. Peter Hains actions were obviously a last resort. Philip Green is a rather unsavoury character who has very few morals. Stealing pensions is bad enough. He lives the Donald Trump lifestyle, he's super rich and thinks he can walk on water. Accusations have been made and Mister Green should deal with them.....in public.

More power to Peter Hains elbow.

I think an High Court Judge is in a much better position to judge and will know much more about the situation than You, Me and Peter Hains.

[Top Cats Hat]

The front pages of today's newspapers have effectively judged him to be a guilty man.

 

No they haven't.

 

They have asked the very reasonable question which is if he was innocent of all claims, why pay substantial amounts of money to a number of people to effectively shut them up?

 

And do you seriously think that anyone who uses their wealth, status and influence to try and gag the press is not going to be on the front cover of every paper when it backfires?

 

Seriously?

[Lockdoctor]

No they haven't.

 

They have asked the very reasonable question which is if he was innocent of all claims, why pay substantial amounts of money to a number of people to effectively shut them up?

 

And do you seriously think that anyone who uses their wealth, status and influence to try and gag the press is not going to be on the front cover of every paper when it backfires?

 

Seriously?

One newspaper front page wrote Sir Philip Green with the word Sir crossed out. Most people don't read the full articles in the newspapers. Wealthy people use their money and power to attempt to stop allegations being made public because they know both false and true allegations are damaging to themselves. The people who don't like Sir Philip Green will believe any bad allegations labelled against him, regardless of whether the allegations have any substance.

[Top Cats Hat]

I think an High Court Judge is in a much better position to judge and will know much more about the situation than You, Me and Peter Hains.

 

High Court judges in the UK have a long and dishonourable tradition of believing that it is their job to act in the interests of the rich and powerful.