Lockdoctor Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Some posters weren't born yesterday. I hope you are never called up for jury service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Some posters don't seem to be aware of 'innocent until proven guilty' If people manage to keep what has happened secret, there will be no investigation by the press, rich people pay hush money. ---------- Post added 28-10-2018 at 08:53 ---------- I'm surprised that he's been allowed to keep his knighthood On Wednesday the Telegraph reported Green was granted an injunction. The paper said interviews with five members of staff revealed that victims had been paid "substantial sums" in return for legal commitments not to discuss their alleged experiences. Green has said these payouts were because of 'banter'. Unless those that received the payments want to speak out and pay the money back, we wont know what this banter was. The Telegraph and the media pay good money for a 'story', Green will need to pay some more hush money or they will spill the beans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 If people manage to keep what has happened secret, there will be no investigation by the press, rich people pay hush money. Investigation by the press? The press enforce our laws do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockdoctor Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 If people manage to keep what has happened secret, there will be no investigation by the press, rich people pay hush money. It's very common for business people to agree on out of court settlements. An out of court settlement doesn't make the party paying money guilty of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 It's very common for business people to agree on out of court settlements. An out of court settlement doesn't make the party paying money guilty of anything. If the activity was criminal, aren’t the people who received money to keep it quiet also guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockdoctor Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 If the activity was criminal, aren’t the people who received money to keep it quiet also guilty? You make a fair point. I think it is more about the individual's morals, if they believe they have been a victim of criminal activity and decide to accept money rather than report the incident to the police. All we do know about the matter being discussed is that three high court judges approved the injunction and they must have had good reasons to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidonica Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 A man who claims "it was only banter which had never been offensive" is prepared to pay out enormous amounts of money to keep people quiet is innocent? What is he hiding that is worth so much money? I think the correct phrase is "presumed innocent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 A man who claims "it was only banter which had never been offensive" is prepared to pay out enormous amounts of money to keep people quiet is innocent? What is he hiding that is worth so much money? I think the correct phrase is "presumed innocent". All you have there is speculation. It is not for you to decide. Many on this forum just simply do not understand this. We have due process. Why we can’t let that run and come to a conclusion I do not understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 All we do know about the matter being discussed is that three high court judges approved the injunction and they must have had good reasons to do so. It was a temporary 'injunction', it could well have been overturned at a later date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockdoctor Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 It was a temporary 'injunction', it could well have been overturned at a later date. Yes, that is true, but the decision of whether to remove the injunction was the job of the three high court judges and not Peter Hain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now