Sir Phillip Green & BBC

Watch this thread
dudemanmad
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Why does the BBC make it seem as Lord Hayne was abusing his parliamentary privilege? Does it set bad precedent? And why is the Labour MP saying he has "No regard for the court of law"
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by dudemanmad)
Why does the BBC make it seem as Lord Hayne was abusing his parliamentary privilege? Does it set bad precedent? And why is the Labour MP saying he has "No regard for the court of law"

I dont think the BBC does, but it is raising legitimate questions about the right to use parliamentary privilege and whether this was an abuse.
Questionable precedent as I dont see why there was a public interest issue.
The injunction was temporary prior to an actual trial at court, which was already set.
By using PP in this way he defeated the temp injunction by the court, which has more authority to decide legal issues and would do so in a lawful and considered manner. He isnt more important then the court and theres no reason why it cant have waited till the trial.

It was bound to have been printed in Scotland or abroad.
1
reply
dudemanmad
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by 999tigger)
which has more authority to decide legal issues and would do so in a lawful and considered manner. He isnt more important then the court
I was agreeing with you but then I got confused. If parliament are the lawmakers then surely they're above the law enforcers? Thanks for the reply tho <3
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by dudemanmad)
I was agreeing with you but then I got confused. If parliament are the lawmakers then surely they're above the law enforcers? Thanks for the reply tho <3
But a person is innocent until proven guilty.

PP isnt for this sort of event.
All its done is devalued PP and the ability of the courts to do their job.
0
reply
dudemanmad
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#5
innocent till proven guilty of s***. I do ask why he wanted his name not coming out. Apparently spent 500000 on lawyers
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
It was abuse of parliamentary privilege. And Dominic Grieve is right that Hain is a sanctimonious tw*t, as my dear departed nan would say.

It is not for individual parliamentarians to usurp the judicial function of the courts; only Parliament acting as a whole should do that. With a whole bunch of checks and balances, consultation, and serious consideration of all the issues. Not irrelevant life peers hoping to summon back some of the spotlight, making hasty and poor decisions.

Hain's rotund mate Mr Tom Watson has shown the danger of individual parliamentarians taking the law into their own hands and taking action without proper investigation.
1
reply
dudemanmad
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#7
looking back on it I think does parties were in the ****. Hain was just tryna get some popularity off of the #MeToo movement and Sir Green probably thought he could get away with it with the culture back in the 80's
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by dudemanmad)
Why does the BBC make it seem as Lord Hayne was abusing his parliamentary privilege? Does it set bad precedent? And why is the Labour MP saying he has "No regard for the court of law"
The BBC isn't saying he is abusing parliamentary privilege. They are merely reflecting the view of those who think he is. And they have a point. The law is the law but if MPs start riding rough-shod over the law one has to wonder what the point of the law is. Those in Parliament should seek to amend the law through the proper channels first.

That said, NDAs were originally intended to allow companies to keep their secrets e.g. the recipe of Coke for example. In this case an NDA has been used to try and cover up allegations of sexual harassment. So where do you square this issue? Which is more pressing? Allowing sexual harassment to be covered up in the workplace through legitimate legal means or occasionally breaking with convention to uncover such misdemeanours?
0
reply
username3883544
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
I think that court injunctions should be for a limited time, to allow for a hearing. Not until next year as is the case- the hearing about the NDAs could be held much quicker.

What I hope is that all the people who allege harassment and threatening behaviour, of whatever form, by Philip Green, feel able to go to the Police. Assuming evidence, then he should be facing a number of charges in court, which if found guilty would probably mean prison.

Parliament should reform the law on injunctions. Whilst I am happy that Lord Hain named Philip Green, it is because Mr Green is a nasty unpleasant person.
1
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
The establishment are just doing their bit to protect one of the tribe, same with Harvey Weinstein.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Davij038)
The establishment are just doing their bit to protect one of the tribe, same with Harvey Weinstein.
Care to explain this? Seems you fail to understand the issues.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by 999tigger)
Care to explain this? Seems you fail to understand the issues.
Whenever wealthy and powerful people from a certain community get in trouble, there are no shortage of politicians and other figures to defend them - usually under the pretext of some sort of legal norm as Dominic Grieve did.

Of course powerful people want to protect their own but this is never greater when amongst the ‘chosen people’ .
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
Lord Hain described the injunction, which should never have been on sale in the first place. So it is a very good precedent to set that they will be rendered useless. No one, no matter how rich, should be able to buy off our courts.

It is in the public interest since Green has so many employees under him with more applying, potentially signing these NDAs, not knowing they are about to be racially and/or sexually abused then intimidated away from reporting those crimes.

Obviously lawyers will want these gagging orders to remain for sale, as they are a sizeable source of income.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Davij038)
Whenever wealthy and powerful people from a certain community get in trouble, there are no shortage of politicians and other figures to defend them - usually under the pretext of some sort of legal norm as Dominic Grieve did.

Of course powerful people want to protect their own but this is never greater when amongst the ‘chosen people’ .
So explain the justification for using parliamentary privilege in this case.
Why would you undermine the court case?
Why would you undermine the principle of innocent till proven guilty?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by ThomH97)
Lord Hain described the injunction, which should never have been on sale in the first place. So it is a very good precedent to set that they will be rendered useless. No one, no matter how rich, should be able to buy off our courts.

It is in the public interest since Green has so many employees under him with more applying, potentially signing these NDAs, not knowing they are about to be racially and/or sexually abused then intimidated away from reporting those crimes.

Obviously lawyers will want these gagging orders to remain for sale, as they are a sizeable source of income.
They arent a sizeable source of income.
Hes done more damage to parliamentary privilege and the rule of law.
It was either for the court to decide or parliament to legislate.
My understanding is the NDAs have been post event. Iy may now not be tested as to what has gone on and the legality of such agreements.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by 999tigger)
They arent a sizeable source of income.
Hes done more damage to parliamentary privilege and the rule of law.
It was either for the court to decide or parliament to legislate.
My understanding is the NDAs have been post event. Iy may now not be tested as to what has gone on and the legality of such agreements.
I don't know about this one, but Ryan Giggs' was estimated at about £200k, with £50k up front.

There's absolutely no damage done as far as I can see, and in fact has shown very good reason for PP to exist.

Yes, the court needed to decide correctly in the first place, and Parliament needs to legislate so that the courts don't make the same error in future. What kind of judge sells away a victim's right to report a crime?

If the NDAs were indeed post event/complaint to HR, I still feel they should not hold any weight if the victim makes an allegation of a crime to police - no one should be prosecuted for reporting a crime, especially by the people who stand against crime. We need a public ruling and statement regarding this.
0
reply
RobinKent
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
PP is there to allow MPs to discuss freely without fear of legal action. In this case a member of the house of Lords decided to name an individual in a case where courts had ruled he could not be named. In doing so he struck down the decision of the court, which would in due course have been subject to further legal proceedings where the name might have come out. In doing so he prevented the legal process from operating as intended by Parliament. He decided he knew better.

The effect now is that if a harassment claim is made then out of court settlements are not going to be agreed, victims will have to prove their case to a far higher standard and fewer victims will get any form of compensation at all.

Well done the unelected Lord!
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by ThomH97)
I don't know about this one, but Ryan Giggs' was estimated at about £200k, with £50k up front.

There's absolutely no damage done as far as I can see, and in fact has shown very good reason for PP to exist.

Yes, the court needed to decide correctly in the first place, and Parliament needs to legislate so that the courts don't make the same error in future. What kind of judge sells away a victim's right to report a crime?

If the NDAs were indeed post event/complaint to HR, I still feel they should not hold any weight if the victim makes an allegation of a crime to police - no one should be prosecuted for reporting a crime, especially by the people who stand against crime. We need a public ruling and statement regarding this.
Then you dont understand about PP, the idea someone is innocent until proven guilty or why th rule of law needs to be respected.
The damage is that someone who until they decide otherwise is now being judged as guilty.

The courts havent made an error. tell is what it is?

No judge has sold anyones rights. As you say you dont even know what the case is about.

You dont know if a crime has been committed. Its unlikely any such NDA would then be legal.

As it is Hain has abused the PP and has an unelected Lord has usurped the authority of the courts to make such a decision in the pending court case.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by ThomH97)
Lord Hain described the injunction, which should never have been on sale in the first place. So it is a very good precedent to set that they will be rendered useless. No one, no matter how rich, should be able to buy off our courts.

It is in the public interest since Green has so many employees under him with more applying, potentially signing these NDAs, not knowing they are about to be racially and/or sexually abused then intimidated away from reporting those crimes.

Obviously lawyers will want these gagging orders to remain for sale, as they are a sizeable source of income.
This interim injunction was put in place by the Court of Appeal. I will be honest with you: I trust the Court of Appeal in matters of law over ThomH97. But that is just me.
1
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by 999tigger)
Then you dont understand about PP, the idea someone is innocent until proven guilty or why th rule of law needs to be respected.
The damage is that someone who until they decide otherwise is now being judged as guilty.

The courts havent made an error. tell is what it is?

No judge has sold anyones rights. As you say you dont even know what the case is about.

You dont know if a crime has been committed. Its unlikely any such NDA would then be legal.

As it is Hain has abused the PP and has an unelected Lord has usurped the authority of the courts to make such a decision in the pending court case.
Hain has not thrown Green in prison without trial, nor has he argued for that to happen. He's struck the first blow to break the immoral gagging order the courts sold to Green. That Green's choice to buy the gagging order has worsened his already poor image is his own fault.

The error is compounding the issue of victims being unable to report crimes by implicitly enforcing it by actively selling the gagging order to Green. The right to report a crime you are the victim of are the rights that have been sold.

You're right, I don't know the details with any surety, but given that the accused has tried to silence everyone who is either a victim or a whistleblower, it's plain to see that the situation needs to be investigated. Some judges agreeing to silence everyone in return for a heap of cash is unacceptable.

The Lords being unelected is an issue for another thread. For the courts to decide certain victims should not have a voice because their abuser paid enough money is reason enough for anyone to speak out.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

Y13s: How will you be receiving your A-level results?

In person (79)
67.52%
In the post (5)
4.27%
Text (15)
12.82%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (18)
15.38%

Watched Threads

View All