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

[The Joker]

Super Injunctions should only be used in matters of national security, and not just because some unsavoury character doesn’t want details of their unsavouriness made public.

 

And good on Peter Hain for using Parliamentary Privilege for exposing the greedy and shameless ‘Sir’ Philip Green.

 

Injunction that, you tax-dodging exile

[Anna B]

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.

 

If you've seen Phillip Green's performance in front of the government select committee when giving evidence about the collapse of BHS, you will have learned all you need to know about the man.

 

Arrogant, disrespectful, morally bankrupt, devious, bad tempered and with a huge sense of entitlement. IMO, a very unpleasant character.

[sheffbag]

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!

So the judge is part of the legal system which allows the rich advantages yet a MP doesnt have any advantages that the rest of us dont have? like say parlimentary protection ?

[Top Cats Hat]

So the judge is part of the legal system which allows the rich advantages yet a MP doesnt have any advantages that the rest of us dont have? like say parlimentary protection ?

 

Maybe this will start a debate about Parliamentary Priviledge which dates back centuries and came about to allow MPs to be able to carry out their duties free of legal challenge by various interested parties.

 

Maybe it should only apply to elected parliamentarians rather than appointed ones or those there by birth or religious affiliation.

 

I'd be happy with that.

[geared]

It's no real surprise it's happened, most MP's hate the mans guts so when the opportunity comes up to give him a kicking you know someone will have a pop.

 

He must have know that chances of keeping it all hushed up were pretty slim, the super-injunctions rarely work when the public catch interest in the matter.

[EUCLID11]

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 ----------

 

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 were instrumental in hindering and crushing the Westminster Peadophile inquiry. I rest my case.

[Annie Bynnol]

Maybe this will start a debate about Parliamentary Priviledge which dates back centuries and came about to allow MPs to be able to carry out their duties free of legal challenge by various interested parties.

 

Maybe it should only apply to elected parliamentarians rather than appointed ones or those there by birth or religious affiliation.

 

I'd be happy with that.

 

Lord Hain is aware that there have been and are currently dozens of "super injunctions" which are a legal device only available to the very rich.

They have often been shown to be legal devices used against other individuals, organizations and against the public interest.

The debate should be broadened to include their use as the Judiciary is not happy with them at all and are being blamed unfairly for their continued use.

The term 'in the public interest' is also needs redefining as the personal affairs of a footballer and that of the actions of an employer appear to me streets apart.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Annie Bynnol

[Baron99]

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!

 

Reading about Green previously & in today's papers, it's clear he's an odious, bully of a man both in his private & business life. A biography of him, ' The Inside Story of Sir Philip Green' tells how he confronted the the CEO of M&S after he failed to take them over by grabbing him by his lapels & then handing him his mobile so Green's wife could call him a (can't even partly use the word on SF in case I'm barred but it's not a million miles from can't). His missus sounds a charmer as well. He's got form for laying into junior members of staff leaving some crying. He does seem to enjoy belittling women.

 

However, having stated all.the above, the Court of Appeal"s injunction was only a INTERIM injunction which apparently cost Green in the region of £500,000. The injured parties were apparently happy to accept 'substantial' non-disclosure payments for their silence & put an end to.any legal action & court appearances by BOTH parties. That therefore should be an end to the matter.

 

Therefore in this case, I think Hain has got it wrong. He says he did this as a tesult of 'Being in contact with someone in this case'? Today's papers suggest someone who was happy to accept payment along the lines of the non-disclosure agreement but are now not satisfied?

 

If this is the case, then they should go directly to the police as in this day & age, sexual & racial discrimination / harassment cases are taken seriously.

 

Many times on SF I've seen posters complaining of people being tried by social media. Well here we have someone being tried under Parliamentary Privilege.

 

I'm reminded of the last time I can remember Parliamentary Privilege being used when Lab MP, Kate Hoey called Terry Venebles. Venebles' response was that if she was brave enough to make the same allegations outside the House of Commons, he'd see her in court.

[Eater Sundae]

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.

 

Peter Hain’s actions were not a last resort. The court process was still ongoing.

[Top Cats Hat]

 

The injured parties were apparently happy to accept 'substantial' non-disclosure payments for their silence & put an end to.any legal action & court appearances by BOTH parties. That therefore should be an end to the matter.

 

 

The injured parties may or may not be happy to accept 'substantial non disclosure payments' for their silence but the public and particularly those employed by him or likely to be employed by him have a right to know if he is likely to sexually or racially abuse them.

 

It is not in the gift of those who signed those disclosures, to prevent anyone else from knowing what has gone on.