Philip Green

[suewhistle]

What is the old saying "justice is like The Ritz, open to all"..?

 

What Sir PG should be considering is that no one hearing the news has been the least bit surprised it was him. You do have to wonder why he was paying 7 figure sums for people to keep quiet.

 

As for the fact that a couple of people wanted to keep quiet, I don't that particularly strengthens the argument in favour of enforcing NDAs, particularly given the unequal relative power and financial relationships of the various parties.

[aintforever]

Provided they’re happy to take the cash and move on, why deny them that?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

To prevent future offences.

 

You can’t just have rich people going around grabbing pussies all over the place without fear of any comeback. Michael Jackson, Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church - they all used NDAs to cover up what happened. Silence allows abuse to fester.

[benjii]

To prevent future offences.

 

You can’t just have rich people going around grabbing pussies all over the place without fear of any comeback. Michael Jackson, Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church - they all used NDAs to cover up what happened. Silence allows abuse to fester.

 

The King of Pop is innocent! God bless you, Michael.

[Lord Duckhunter]

To prevent future offences.

 

You can’t just have rich people going around grabbing pussies all over the place without fear of any comeback. Michael Jackson, Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church - they all used NDAs to cover up what happened. Silence allows abuse to fester.

 

If some rich chick grabs my tackle it’s up to me whether I decide to report the matter to the police, not you or any other soft arsed leftie. I may decide that I’ll take a bung & get on with my life. We will see if Green is convicted of any offence, I seriously doubt he will be despite the “crime” being outed. There’s not even any evidence yet that he’s done anything illegal. You seem obsessed with the state controlling people’s lives.

[sadoldgit]

Pony

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Bottom line. You may well not agree with Hain’s actions (many do by the way) but has he done anything illegal? No. Has Green? Possibly. If he hasn’t it either will not go to court or it will and he could well be found innocent. I think your problem here is that Hain, in your eyes, is a leftie pinko who is fighting a class war. Frankly the more people who stand up against bullying and the abuse of power the better. If that means the power of NDAs is reduced I think that can only be a good thing. We read more and more about people who have had their silence bought only for it to affect their mental well being for years to come. The whole point of the #metoo movement is that people want to be heard. That point seems to have slipped the likes of you and Trump by. Do you really still think it is ok to call women chicks?

[OldNick]

To prevent future offences.

 

You can’t just have rich people going around grabbing pussies all over the place without fear of any comeback. Michael Jackson, Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church - they all used NDAs to cover up what happened. Silence allows abuse to fester.

that is fair.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Bottom line. You may well not agree with Hain’s actions (many do by the way) but has he done anything illegal? No. Has Green? Possibly. If he hasn’t it either will not go to court or it will and he could well be found innocent. I think your problem here is that Hain, in your eyes, is a leftie pinko who is fighting a class war. Frankly the more people who stand up against bullying and the abuse of power the better. If that means the power of NDAs is reduced I think that can only be a good thing. We read more and more about people who have had their silence bought only for it to affect their mental well being for years to come. The whole point of the #metoo movement is that people want to be heard. That point seems to have slipped the likes of you and Trump by. Do you really still think it is ok to call women chicks?

 

More virtual signalling pony. It’s got **** all to do with #metoopony

 

Hain is a second rate politician desperate for the limelight. What he did is only legal because of some archaic law. Historian David Starkey claimed on Friday that privilege was granted to parliamentarians to protect them from judges interfering with parliament, not to enable parliament to interfere with the process of law in an individual case. Alan Johnson said claimed it’s granted to be used “during your legislative duties”. What legislative duties was Hain engaged in? Forget the individuals, forget the alleged offence and concentrate on the principle. I’ve no doubt if JRM stood up and named a rape complainant you’d be wetting your knickers. You can’t pick and choose based on individual cases, it’s either right or wrong. Lords bypassing the legal process and undermining judges is wrong, no matter who is involved.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cabbage_Face]

More virtual signalling pony. It’s got **** all to do with #metoopony

 

Hain is a second rate politician desperate for the limelight. What he did is only legal because of some archaic law. Historian David Starkey claimed on Friday that privilege was granted to parliamentarians to protect them from judges interfering with parliament, not to enable parliament to interfere with the process of law in an individual case. Alan Johnson said claimed it’s granted to be used “during your legislative duties”. What legislative duties was Hain engaged in? Forget the individuals, forget the alleged offence and concentrate on the principle. I’ve no doubt if JRM stood up and named a rape complainant you’d be wetting your knickers. You can’t pick and choose based on individual cases, it’s either right or wrong. Lords bypassing the legal process and undermining judges is wrong, no matter who is involved.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Do you have some dodgy NDA's or something?

[aintforever]

If some rich chick grabs my tackle it’s up to me whether I decide to report the matter to the police, not you or any other soft arsed leftie. I may decide that I’ll take a bung & get on with my life. We will see if Green is convicted of any offence, I seriously doubt he will be despite the “crime” being outed. There’s not even any evidence yet that he’s done anything illegal. You seem obsessed with the state controlling people’s lives.

 

There you go with the red blue nonsense again, you’re obsessed. I’m not sure why wanting a fair justice system makes me a lefty? I don’t want the state to control people’s lives just don’t think bungs to silence people helps get justice or prevent future bad behaviour.

 

Maybe there should be a Lord Duckhunter Bung option drafted into our legal system so that rich people are spared jail, awkward questions from their wife or embarrassing TV interviews when they commit offences? Would have to have a set price to make it fair, how about:

 

Accidental racist abuse - £1,000

Well-meaning pussy grab - £2,000

Serious sexual assault - £20,000

 

Obviously to make if fair there should be a monthly payment plan option for poor people so they can enjoy the same privilege of not facing justice. Unfortunately it could never really be fair as richer victims will never need to settle for the money option as they already have enough, they will always have the pleasure of seeing the offender get justice.

[Lord Duckhunter]

There you go with the red blue nonsense again, you’re obsessed. I’m not sure why wanting a fair justice system makes me a lefty?

 

I’m the one who is advocating a fair justice system, not you. I want judges, juries and courts to determine justice, you’re happy for one individual to over ride that. This isn’t about individual cases, this is about a principle. Politicians, or even worse, unelected peers , shouldn’t ride roughshod over due process .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jonnyboy]

There you go with the red blue nonsense again, you’re obsessed. I’m not sure why wanting a fair justice system makes me a lefty? I don’t want the state to control people’s lives just don’t think bungs to silence people helps get justice or prevent future bad behaviour.

 

Maybe there should be a Lord Duckhunter Bung option drafted into our legal system so that rich people are spared jail, awkward questions from their wife or embarrassing TV interviews when they commit offences? Would have to have a set price to make it fair, how about:

 

Accidental racist abuse - £1,000

Well-meaning pussy grab - £2,000

Serious sexual assault - £20,000

 

Obviously to make if fair there should be a monthly payment plan option for poor people so they can enjoy the same privilege of not facing justice. Unfortunately it could never really be fair as richer victims will never need to settle for the money option as they already have enough, they will always have the pleasure of seeing the offender get justice.

 

Typical right winger, thinks the rich are superior and should be treated differently.

[sadoldgit]

I’m the one who is advocating a fair justice system, not you. I want judges, juries and courts to determine justice, you’re happy for one individual to over ride that. This isn’t about individual cases, this is about a principle. Politicians, or even worse, unelected peers , shouldn’t ride roughshod over due process .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I wonder if you would be so defensive of Green if you had a BHS pension duckie? This has got nothing to do with justice or whether he is guilty or not. It has everything to do with people with power and money gagging the press. Why should they be allowed to do that when the likes of you and I can’t? It should be the same for all.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I wonder if you would be so defensive of Green if you had a BHS pension duckie? This has got nothing to do with justice or whether he is guilty or not. It has everything to do with people with power and money gagging the press. Why should they be allowed to do that when the likes of you and I can’t? It should be the same for all.

 

You seem to be missing my point. Hopefully it’s deliberate, cause id be worried if you didn’t get it. It’s nothing to do with Green, what he’s allegedly done, or even what the offence he’s accused of is. It’s unelected Lords bypassing the justice system & overruling court rulings. We have the same problem with free speech in modern political debate, people are all for it provided people don’t say offensive things. Free speech should be absolute and you should defend Nick Griffins right to it as vigorously as anyone’s. Same here. Just because Green seems to be an odious man, accused of awful behaviour doesn’t alter my belief that parliamentarians have no business interfering in a legal process, especially one that not yet reached its conclusion. I’ll ask you again, if JRM stood up and named the bird who accused Ched Evens, would you defend him?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sadoldgit]

You seem to be missing my point. Hopefully it’s deliberate, cause id be worried if you didn’t get it. It’s nothing to do with Green, what he’s allegedly done, or even what the offence he’s accused of is. It’s unelected Lords bypassing the justice system & overruling court rulings. We have the same problem with free speech in modern political debate, people are all for it provided people don’t say offensive things. Free speech should be absolute and you should defend Nick Griffins right to it as vigorously as anyone’s. Same here. Just because Green seems to be an odious man, accused of awful behaviour doesn’t alter my belief that parliamentarians have no business interfering in a legal process, especially one that not yet reached its conclusion. I’ll ask you again, if JRM stood up and named the bird who accused Ched Evens, would you defend him?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Completely different situations. The CPS decided to prosecute Evans based on the evidence they had. No one is prosecuting Green at the momemt and if they do it will be because of the evidence against him. Again, why are you getting so upset?

[scotty]

Completely different situations. The CPS decided to prosecute Evans based on the evidence they had. No one is prosecuting Green at the momemt and if they do it will be because of the evidence against him. Again, why are you getting so upset?

 

He's pointing out that Peter Hain breached a court ruling by using parliamentary privilege, and that doing so was wrong regardless of Green's qualities (or lack of.)

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Completely different situations. The CPS decided to prosecute Evans based on the evidence they had. No one is prosecuting Green at the momemt and if they do it will be because of the evidence against him. Again, why are you getting so upset?

 

You're really struggling to get this - this is not about the person accused, this is about interference in legal process. Considering your background, surely you should support what LD is saying.

[aintforever]

Lords interfering in the legal process is obviously not ideal but in this case where it is obviously in the public interest so I don't have a problem with it. Good to see the house of Lords actually do something useful.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Lords interfering in the legal process is obviously not ideal but in this case where it is obviously in the public interest so I don't have a problem with it. Good to see the house of Lords actually do something useful.

 

But why is it in the public interest?

[aintforever]

But why is it in the public interest?

 

Because the misuse of NDAs to silence people who have been subject to bullying, harassment or worse is a problem. Sexual harassment can be stopped only by exposure, not by secret payments and NDA contracts that bind victims to silence. Experience tells us that predators are serial offenders – just as one victim leads to another so one NDA leads to another.

 

I think the law will be revised, even Theresa May has vowed to end the unethical use of NDAs, hopefully Hain has helped things move a bit quicker.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Because the misuse of NDAs to silence people who have been subject to bullying, harassment or worse is a problem. Sexual harassment can be stopped only by exposure, not by secret payments and NDA contracts that bind victims to silence. Experience tells us that predators are serial offenders – just as one victim leads to another so one NDA leads to another.

 

I think the law will be revised, even Theresa May has vowed to end the unethical use of NDAs, hopefully Hain has helped things move a bit quicker.

 

They have a choice, take the money or take it to court. He will have paid them off because in this situation any publicity is bad publicity - it's not worth it. A little bit like the CR7 case.

 

He hasn't even been charged with anything, so it only becomes in the public interest if he is charged with something. Otherwise, if someone said "Aintforever grabbed my tits", we could happily put it out in public for everyone to see.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Lords interfering in the legal process is obviously not ideal but in this case where it is obviously in the public interest so I don't have a problem with it. Good to see the house of Lords actually do something useful.

 

So who decides the public interest? You, Hain,? What’s “ The public” . I’m sure the public would be interested in stuff that’s none of their damn business, so who decides. Here’s an idea, what about letting a court decide. This I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) was The Telegraphs case, that it was in the public’s interest to name the businessman that had used NDA’s. The court disagreed so made a interim ruling against them doing so. That’s the thing, the legal process hadn’t even been exhausted when Hain blundered in, which made his contribution even worse imo.

 

So your argument is that Lords shouldn’t interfere in the legal process unless it’s in the public interest, but if an independent judiciary rule it’s not in the public interest, they can anyway because you think it is. Principled stand you’ve got there. I’ll put that in the “you have the right to free speech, provided I agree with you” bag.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

So who decides the public interest? You, Hain,? What’s “ The public” . I’m sure the public would be interested in stuff that’s none of their damn business, so who decides. Here’s an idea, what about letting a court decide. This I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) was The Telegraphs case, that it was in the public’s interest to name the businessman that had used NDA’s. The court disagreed so made a interim ruling against them doing so. That’s the thing, the legal process hadn’t even been exhausted when Hain blundered in, which made his contribution even worse imo.

 

So your argument is that Lords shouldn’t interfere in the legal process unless it’s in the public interest, but if an independent judiciary rule it’s not in the public interest, they can anyway because you think it is. Principled stand you’ve got there. I’ll put that in the “you have the right to free speech, provided I agree with you” bag.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well you've already made it clear you approve of rich people covering up sexual assault with bungs so we all know what bag you go in - the 80's dinosaur one.

 

What Hain did wasn't correct procedure and in principle I don't agree with politicians interfering but I believe he is right in that it is in the pubic's best interest not to cover these things up. That's just my opinion, that's why I'm not bothered by his interference.

[Batman]

Well you've already made it clear you approve of rich people covering up sexual assault with bungs so we all know what bag you go in - the 80's dinosaur one.

 

.

 

Where has he said that?

Also, is Green guilty?

[whelk]

So who decides the public interest? You, Hain,? What’s “ The public” . I’m sure the public would be interested in stuff that’s none of their damn business, so who decides. Here’s an idea, what about letting a court decide. This I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) was The Telegraphs case, that it was in the public’s interest to name the businessman that had used NDA’s. The court disagreed so made a interim ruling against them doing so. That’s the thing, the legal process hadn’t even been exhausted when Hain blundered in, which made his contribution even worse imo.

 

So your argument is that Lords shouldn’t interfere in the legal process unless it’s in the public interest, but if an independent judiciary rule it’s not in the public interest, they can anyway because you think it is. Principled stand you’ve got there. I’ll put that in the “you have the right to free speech, provided I agree with you” bag.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well done for posting without pre-fixing ‘unelected’

[whelk]

Where has he said that?

Also, is Green guilty?

 

....as sin.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Well you've already made it clear you approve of rich people covering up sexual assault with bungs so we all know what bag you go in - the 80's dinosaur one.

 

This is the problem with trying to debate snowflakes. They’re so moral and righteous that they throw stupid accusations around. I don’t approve of anyone sexually assaulting chicks, anymore than you do.

 

The independence of the justice system should be absolute in my opinion. If that means that judges and courts give rulings that allow people to get away with abhorrent stuff, so be it. Far better that than 2 bit washed up politicians over ruling them for a bit of virtual signalling.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sadoldgit]

You're really struggling to get this - this is not about the person accused, this is about interference in legal process. Considering your background, surely you should support what LD is saying.

 

I am not missing the point at all. Hain has done nothing wrong. You might not agree with the whole Parliamentary privilege thing or the use of it in the case, but it is not illegal and is part of the checks and balances that we employ in our democracy. I am more concerned over the practice of using money to buy victims silence and avoiding justice to be honest. If Parliamentary privilidge was used all the time I might agree with you, but it is used very sparingly. If Hain helps to bring about the end of NDAs through his actions then fair play. No one should avoid justice through buying silence.

[Jonnyboy]

This is the problem with trying to debate snowflakes. They’re so moral and righteous that they throw stupid accusations around. I don’t approve of anyone sexually assaulting chicks, anymore than you do.

 

The independence of the justice system should be absolute in my opinion. If that means that judges and courts give rulings that allow people to get away with abhorrent stuff, so be it. Far better that than 2 bit washed up politicians over ruling them for a bit of virtual signalling.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not sexual assault but what about the time you wore that "chick's" knickers on your head in the bar that time after you'd just had sex. Good laugh for the lads but pretty humiliating for her. Should you be able to sue anyone who writes about that event in an effort to smear your character?

[sadoldgit]

You seem to be missing my point. Hopefully it’s deliberate, cause id be worried if you didn’t get it. It’s nothing to do with Green, what he’s allegedly done, or even what the offence he’s accused of is. It’s unelected Lords bypassing the justice system & overruling court rulings. We have the same problem with free speech in modern political debate, people are all for it provided people don’t say offensive things. Free speech should be absolute and you should defend Nick Griffins right to it as vigorously as anyone’s. Same here. Just because Green seems to be an odious man, accused of awful behaviour doesn’t alter my belief that parliamentarians have no business interfering in a legal process, especially one that not yet reached its conclusion. I’ll ask you again, if JRM stood up and named the bird who accused Ched Evens, would you defend him?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I am struggling to understand why you think that anyone would name a victim? Surely what Hain is trying to do in this instance is to try and ensure there are no more victims in the first place. If there is no bullying and no sexual harassment there is no need for what follows. If Green is guilty of doing such things and now stops doing them because of Hain, isnt that a good thing? If he does get pulled up on charges and is found guilty, isn't that a good thing? If it stops others trying to do what the Weinstein's of this world have been doing for years, isn't that a good thing? Or do you have such a low opinion of "birds" and "chicks" that you think they are fair game?

[Batman]

I am struggling to understand why you think that anyone would name a victim? ?

 

she wasnt a victim though, was she

[benjii]

Seems to me, the settlement agreement incorporating a confidentiality / non-disclosure obligation (because that's actually what these are - a pure NDA doesn't involve the payment of cash to settle a claim) is the only alternative to forcing victims to seek redress publicly through the courts or via a criminal complaint (assuming it's criminal activity that is alleged).

 

If you ban "NDA" element of a settlement agreement then that leaves the following:

 

- you agree a settlement anyway but either side is free to make the details public. I'm not sure what incentive there is for the alleged perpetrator to settle a civil claim in those circumstances, particularly where there is a big imbalance in power and wealth. They would be more likely to try to bully the claimant into silence via an expensive legal process.

 

- you effectively make it impossible for claims to be settled, meaning that every victim is forced to go through a full legal process, even if they would rather take some money and keep it quiet.

 

Don't forget, in this case, people are alleged to have received a million pounds or more. Inadequate compensation for a sexual violation, perhaps, but not a bad deal for a bit of inappropriate non-criminal behaviour.

 

Would all those claimants have felt empowered enough to go through formal legal proceedings against a billionaire? Would they have had adequate evidence to go to the police and get a prosecution of it was criminal conduct? I doubt it.

Edited 3 November, 2018 by benjii

[sadoldgit]

she wasnt a victim though, was she

 

Depends how you define victim though doesnt it. The CPS obviously though a women who was so drunk that she had no recollection of what happened to her was a victim. Just a normal night out for you though eh?

[shurlock]

Depends how you define victim though doesnt it. The CPS obviously though a women who was so drunk that she had no recollection of what happened to her was a victim. Just a normal night out for you though eh?

 

Only when he’s in Maidstone pal.

[Batman]

Depends how you define victim though doesnt it. The CPS obviously though a women who was so drunk that she had no recollection of what happened to her was a victim. Just a normal night out for you though eh?

 

Evans was cleared. Is she still a victim?

[benjii]

Victim of a good stuffing.

[whelk]

Victim of a good stuffing.

 

You pr1ck

[Lord Duckhunter]

Depends how you define victim though doesnt it. The CPS obviously though a women who was so drunk that she had no recollection of what happened to her was a victim. Just a normal night out for you though eh?

 

 

The CPS don’t decide if someone is the victim of a crime, a court of law does. Being too drunk to consent to sex is rape, Evens was innocent of rape, ergo she had consensual sex.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[benjii]

You pr1ck

 

Terribly sorry, old bean.

 

It's just the same tiresome roundabout of idiocy from the usual suspects. It made me irreverant.

[Cabbage_Face]

Victim of a good stuffing.

 

Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

Victim of a good stuffing.

Soggy and the like will implode with jokes of that nature.

[Jonnyboy]

Soggy and the like will implode with jokes of that nature.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45960094

[hypochondriac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45960094

What a bizarre non sequitur.

[Jonnyboy]

What a bizarre non sequitur.

 

Alt right types love a bit of misogyny.

[hypochondriac]

Alt right types love a bit of misogyny.

Maybe take that up with them then.

[aintforever]

Evans was cleared. Is she still a victim?

 

Someone can still be a victim of rape even if there’s not enough evidence to get a conviction.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Someone can still be a victim of rape even if there’s not enough evidence to get a conviction.

 

Someone can also be the victim of a miscarriage of justice following a false accusation

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

Someone can also be the victim of a miscarriage of justice following a false accusation

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Obviously

[sadoldgit]

Someone can also be the victim of a miscarriage of justice following a false accusation

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why am I not surprised that you posted this. What do you think the percentage of false accusations are against non false accusations? Over the years do you think that “birds” and “chicks” have just been asking for it and rapists have been hard done by? Of course there have been some false accusations over the years, but perhaps you ought to get your Stone Age brain around the fact that countless rapes and sexual assaults have gone unpunished for centuries. I am guessing that you don’t have any daughters?

[whelk]

Soggy and the like will implode with jokes of that nature.

 

Yeah and you carry on making jokes about rape tough guy

[hypochondriac]

Yeah and you carry on making jokes about rape tough guy

Happy to be corrected but I don't believe I made any jokes about rape.