Jump to content

Philip Green

benjii

By benjii,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
I wonder if it had been an MP if Hain would have outed him

 

What has that got to do with it? He showed contempt for parliamentary committee looking at the pension shenanigans. Problem with obnoxious bullies they build up a lot of enemies.

Hain also has some set up with the solicitors representing the Telegraph

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint in Paradise

Saint in Paradise

Posted
Posted

As a person who dislikes both of those men ( Hain & Green ) I am in a bit of a quandary as to whom I support.

 

I do now wonder IF Hain has somewhat jumped the gun and could in a way have even helped Green.

 

When interviewed by Evan Davies on Newsnight last night, Lord Hain was asked about some of these issues. What about the wishes of

the complainants who supported the injunction? What about the fact that this was an interim injunction? Why the haste? To describe

Lord Hain’s answers as evasive would be charitable. He didn’t even attempt to address the questions, either because he knows there is

no sensible answer, or because he hadn’t taken the time to actually acquaint himself with the basic facts before forming his view.

 

One might suspect that Lord Hain forsook reading the judgment and was taken in by the primary-colour narrative of the Telegraph’s story;

the misleading suggestion that this was a #MeToo parable of victims wanting to tell their stories but being permanently silenced by a court

indulging the whims of powerful, abusive men. In reality, this case is far more complex than that. There are conflicting interests and considerations

of public policy, free speech, evidence and law which deserve, and were going to get, a fair and independent hearing.

 

Lord Hain has ensured that this is one thing which all involved, including potential victims, have now been denied.

 

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/what-lord-peter-hain-didnt-consider-when-he-rushed-to-name-name-philip-green/

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)
I wonder if it had been an MP if Hain would have outed him

 

Exactly, easy to “out” Green, he’s an easy target. Had it been a labour donor or a Remainer it would have been different, as Margaret Beckett said about Bercow “ "the constitutional future of this country...trumps bad behaviour". At the end of the day, 3 senior judges, including the second most senior judge in the country ruled on this, but Hain showed contempt of their ruling. Typical ****ing leftie, hypercritical as per usual

 

 

Ps. I don’t like Green, he’s a slime ball. However, that’s not the point

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted (edited)
Defending Philip Green, a new low even for you.
Where am I defending Green. I have disliked him ever since he did the making billions out of our country and then spiriting it away using his wifes name to avoid tax.

My point was obviously too high brow for you and your paranoia that it is left and right all the time.

Hain used his privilege to out someone who may or may not be guilty as charged. I suspect there are/have been many more instances that he should have used this.

 

It also shows that even your leftie Labour buddies are shamelessly so into companies pockets and use their position for the law firm that the Telegraph was using. Hain gets paid by that law firm, so how can he be of use to them??

Edited by OldNick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
Exactly, easy to “out” Green, he’s an easy target. Had it been a labour donor or a Remainer it would have been different, as Margaret Beckett said about Bercow “ "the constitutional future of this country...trumps bad behaviour". At the end of the day, 3 senior judges, including the second most senior judge in the country ruled on this, but Hain showed contempt of their ruling. Typical ****ing leftie, hypercritical as per usual

 

 

Ps. I don’t like Green, he’s a slime ball. However, that’s not the point

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You think being hypocritical is exclusive to people on the left?

 

Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cabbage_Face

Cabbage_Face

Posted
Posted

We wonder why people have no faith in the justice system, 3 well paid judges deem it correct to hide the identity of someone who (allegedly) sexually and racially abuses staff, brilliant. All corrupt ********. Give him another knighthood. Sir Sir Phillip Green, living off BHS pension pot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
We wonder why people have no faith in the justice system, 3 well paid judges deem it correct to hide the identity of someone who (allegedly) sexually and racially abuses staff, brilliant. All corrupt ********. Give him another knighthood. Sir Sir Phillip Green, living off BHS pension pot.

 

The point is until there has been a case, he's innocent until proven guilty. With his previous reputation, there is no way people would give him the benefit of the doubt, and he wouldn't receive a fair trial.

 

That is why the decision was made. It's why people SHOULD have faith in the justice system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
The point is until there has been a case, he's innocent until proven guilty. With his previous reputation, there is no way people would give him the benefit of the doubt, and he wouldn't receive a fair trial.

 

That is why the decision was made. It's why people SHOULD have faith in the justice system.

Agree with that. Green is a clearly an absolutely massive c*nt but the orders of the judges should have been respected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cabbage_Face

Cabbage_Face

Posted
Posted
The point is until there has been a case, he's innocent until proven guilty. With his previous reputation, there is no way people would give him the benefit of the doubt, and he wouldn't receive a fair trial.

 

That is why the decision was made. It's why people SHOULD have faith in the justice system.

 

How is it “fair” that just because he has money he can silence the victims and the press? World is a mess.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted (edited)
Hain has potentially compromised any trial. If he really wanted Green dealt with he should have shut the *** up. There was no overwhelming public interest reason to out him right now

 

 

How can naming an accused compromise a trial? The police do it all the time and sometimes all sorts of skeletons come out the woodwork.

 

Hain did the right thing IMO, money should not be able to interfere with the justice system.

Edited by aintforever
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yes because of parliamentary privilege. Anything that helps expose bullying, sexual harassment and racial abuse has to be a good thing IMO.

 

But 2 of the “victims” didn’t want him named, and 3 senior judges looking at all the evidence upheld the injunction. Would you support someone using parliamentary privilege to name the women who falsely accused Ched Evens. No of course you wouldn’t, because like Hain you’re not interested in the principle when it involves someone you don’t like.

 

 

This was in The Times today

 

“Dozens of former Labour Party staff have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that ban them from speaking out about sexist and racist behaviour by members — despite Jeremy Corbyn pledging to ban such contractual clauses.

 

Officials who have been paid off since Corbyn’s allies seized control of party headquarters have signed clauses that stop them going public on the scale and severity of sexual harassment, bullying and anti-semitism cases against members.”

 

Let’s see if Hain names these accused members. I won’t hold my breath.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cabbage_Face

Cabbage_Face

Posted
Posted
But 2 of the “victims” didn’t want him named, and 3 senior judges looking at all the evidence upheld the injunction. Would you support someone using parliamentary privilege to name the women who falsely accused Ched Evens. No of course you wouldn’t, because like Hain you’re not interested in the principle when it involves someone you don’t like.

 

 

This was in The Times today

 

“Dozens of former Labour Party staff have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that ban them from speaking out about sexist and racist behaviour by members — despite Jeremy Corbyn pledging to ban such contractual clauses.

 

Officials who have been paid off since Corbyn’s allies seized control of party headquarters have signed clauses that stop them going public on the scale and severity of sexual harassment, bullying and anti-semitism cases against members.”

 

Let’s see if Hain names these accused members. I won’t hold my breath.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well hopefully this will signal the end to the miss use of NDA’s. Let’s face it, if the normal person had done whatever he has done, we couldn’t NDA our way out of trouble. All ********. Name and shame them all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted (edited)
But 2 of the “victims” didn’t want him named, and 3 senior judges looking at all the evidence upheld the injunction. Would you support someone using parliamentary privilege to name the women who falsely accused Ched Evens. No of course you wouldn’t, because like Hain you’re not interested in the principle when it involves someone you don’t like.

 

 

This was in The Times today

 

“Dozens of former Labour Party staff have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that ban them from speaking out about sexist and racist behaviour by members — despite Jeremy Corbyn pledging to ban such contractual clauses.

 

Officials who have been paid off since Corbyn’s allies seized control of party headquarters have signed clauses that stop them going public on the scale and severity of sexual harassment, bullying and anti-semitism cases against members.”

 

Let’s see if Hain names these accused members. I won’t hold my breath.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I would be more than happy for Hain to name labour MPs, I don’t agree with covering up any of this sort of behaviour.

 

I have never met Phillip Green so couldn’t say wether I like him or not so as usual you are talking ****e.

Edited by aintforever
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
I would be more than happy for Hain to name labour MPs, I don’t agree with covering up any of this sort of behaviour.

 

 

It’s not for you to decide ,or Hain for that matter.We have courts & judges to decide these things, not you and certainly not Peter Hain. As was said previously 2 of the alleged victims supported the injunction, not that Hain gave a flying **** about them. If MP’s or even worse unelected Lords, act like they’re above the law, how long before chicks like Ched Evens accuser is named. Parliamentary privilege is just that , a privilege, and Hain has cheapened it because Green is an easy target. Gesture politics of the very worse kind, particularly in the light of major labour figures accepting similar behaviour from the speaker, because he’s on their side over a political issue. Shameful double standards

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
It’s not for you to decide ,or Hain for that matter.We have courts & judges to decide these things, not you and certainly not Peter Hain. As was said previously 2 of the alleged victims supported the injunction, not that Hain gave a flying **** about them. If MP’s or even worse unelected Lords, act like they’re above the law, how long before chicks like Ched Evens accuser is named. Parliamentary privilege is just that , a privilege, and Hain has cheapened it because Green is an easy target. Gesture politics of the very worse kind, particularly in the light of major labour figures accepting similar behaviour from the speaker, because he’s on their side over a political issue. Shameful double standards

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No surprise to see you going into bat for the odious Philip Green. No doubt if his name was Mohammad you wouldnt have an issue with it. I dont recall you getting all upset when Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was filming Asians entering court before they had been found guilty. Still you righties need to stick together in the face of all these pinkos eh? Why exactly should Green not be subject to the same conditions as everyone else just because he has money and status? If it really is just all "banter" then he will have nothing to worry about will he? You lot dont go in much for equality do you? Hain has not cheapened Parliamentary privilege in the least. Those with money or in power should not be able to gag the press - that is the real privilege. They should be treated like everybody else. It will no more compromise his possible future trial (if it comes to that) any more than it does every other individual who has been named before their trials.

 

 

Oh, and it wasn't the "chick" who accused Ched Evans of rape. It was the CPS who decided that he should be prosecuted on the grounds that the woman involve was in no condition to consent. She says she had no recollection of what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
No surprise to see you going into bat for the odious Philip Green. No doubt if his name was Mohammad you wouldnt have an issue with it. I dont recall you getting all upset when Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was filming Asians entering court before they had been found guilty. Still you righties need to stick together in the face of all these pinkos eh? Why exactly should Green not be subject to the same conditions as everyone else just because he has money and status? If it really is just all "banter" then he will have nothing to worry about will he? You lot dont go in much for equality do you? Hain has not cheapened Parliamentary privilege in the least.

 

You don’t have to pigeon hole Tommy Robinson into every thread, we all know how clever you are knowing his previous name, you’re trying too hard now.

 

I believe Hain clearly has over stepped the mark, and the fact your backing him, removes any doubt I may have had. The secret barrister pretty much got it spot on when he wrote this.

 

“We don’t know what that full hearing would have decided. It may well have agreed with the High Court. It may have agreed with the Court of Appeal. But the courts have now been prevented from properly considering the matter by the actions of Lord Hain, who has taken it upon himself to usurp the functions of the independent judiciary in ongoing legal proceedings and impose his own, irreversible judgment on everybody involved.”

 

I suggest you concentrate on the principle rather than the people, it’s surely better for judges & courts to decide these things rather than an unelected member of Parliament

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
You don’t have to pigeon hole Tommy Robinson into every thread, we all know how clever you are knowing his previous name, you’re trying too hard now.

 

I believe Hain clearly has over stepped the mark, and the fact your backing him, removes any doubt I may have had. The secret barrister pretty much got it spot on when he wrote this.

 

“We don’t know what that full hearing would have decided. It may well have agreed with the High Court. It may have agreed with the Court of Appeal. But the courts have now been prevented from properly considering the matter by the actions of Lord Hain, who has taken it upon himself to usurp the functions of the independent judiciary in ongoing legal proceedings and impose his own, irreversible judgment on everybody involved.”

 

I suggest you concentrate on the principle rather than the people, it’s surely better for judges & courts to decide these things rather than an unelected member of Parliament

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I have shoe horned Yaxley-Lennon (his real name not his assumed name) into this because you shoe horn "lefties" and "pinkos" into most of your non football related posts Duckie. What about the principle of all of being treated equally? Is it ok with you that those with money and power can effectively gag the press? From what I can see he is hardly in the Harvey Weinstein category anyway and it seems really odd that he is handing out seven figure sums to shut people up for a bit of "banter!" Hain is a seasoned politician who, I would imagine, gave this matter serious consideration and probably took legal advice before making his announcement. You would prefer to think he is just having a pop at a rich bloke who has rubbed the "lefties" up the wrong way. You may well think that it is not in the public interest to name someone in a position of power and privilege who has been accused of sexual harassment and racial abuse. Would you say the same of the likes of Jimmy Saville (who by the way did not ever stand trial for his alleged crimes)? Wealth, privilege and power should never, ever, stand in the way of justice. As I said before, if he is as innocent as he says, he has nothing to worry about does he? I'll ask you again, would you kick off as much if a right wing Lord had outed an alleged Asian or Muslim offender?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
I have shoe horned Yaxley-Lennon (his real name not his assumed name) into this because you shoe horn "lefties" and "pinkos" into most of your non football related posts Duckie. What about the principle of all of being treated equally? Is it ok with you that those with money and power can effectively gag the press? From what I can see he is hardly in the Harvey Weinstein category anyway and it seems really odd that he is handing out seven figure sums to shut people up for a bit of "banter!" Hain is a seasoned politician who, I would imagine, gave this matter serious consideration and probably took legal advice before making his announcement. You would prefer to think he is just having a pop at a rich bloke who has rubbed the "lefties" up the wrong way. You may well think that it is not in the public interest to name someone in a position of power and privilege who has been accused of sexual harassment and racial abuse. Would you say the same of the likes of Jimmy Saville (who by the way did not ever stand trial for his alleged crimes)? Wealth, privilege and power should never, ever, stand in the way of justice. As I said before, if he is as innocent as he says, he has nothing to worry about does he? I'll ask you again, would you kick off as much if a right wing Lord had outed an alleged Asian or Muslim offender?

 

Pony

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
It’s not for you to decide ,or Hain for that matter.We have courts & judges to decide these things, not you and certainly not Peter Hain. As was said previously 2 of the alleged victims supported the injunction, not that Hain gave a flying **** about them. If MP’s or even worse unelected Lords, act like they’re above the law, how long before chicks like Ched Evens accuser is named. Parliamentary privilege is just that , a privilege, and Hain has cheapened it because Green is an easy target. Gesture politics of the very worse kind, particularly in the light of major labour figures accepting similar behaviour from the speaker, because he’s on their side over a political issue. Shameful double standards

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You’re just obsessed with the usual red v blue nonsense. What Hain did is obviously in the public interest, NDAs need reforming, even the PM says so. Hopefully Hain’s action will highlight the issue and speed things up. It should be illegal to use NDAs to cover up sexual harassment and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
You’re just obsessed with the usual red v blue nonsense. What Hain did is obviously in the public interest, NDAs need reforming, even the PM says so. Hopefully Hain’s action will highlight the issue and speed things up. It should be illegal to use NDAs to cover up sexual harassment and the like.

 

What a load of pony. Firstly, there was only an interim injunction , it’s not for Hain to decide whether this should be broken. It’s contempt if he said it out of parliament. It’s not a blue v red issue, with Alan Johnson a former Labour home sec criticising him.

 

Secondly, it’s not for you, Theresa May, Hain or anyone to decide whether victims can accept payment in return for silence. It’s a free country and if somebody doesn’t want the police involved who are we to insist they must. The alternative could be Green offering them **** all, employing high powered expensive lawyers to fight and get off any criminal charges (remember it’s beyond reasonable doubt). They could take out a civil case, but they’ll be up against the best lawyers money can buy. Provided they’re happy to take the cash and move on, why deny them that?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...