FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Sir Phillip Green
Sir Phillip Green
Jump to: Newest in thread
"It was inevitable his name would come out, the whole NDA issue needs looking at lest we end up with extremely rich people being above the law as it suits.. "
.
I disagree, if somebody takes the money they shouldn't then be allowed to freely talk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was inevitable his name would come out, the whole NDA issue needs looking at lest we end up with extremely rich people being above the law as it suits.. .
I disagree, if somebody takes the money they shouldn't then be allowed to freely talk."
It's a complicated issue and where its about people not disclosing sensitive information about a previous company's products, plans etc then yes that can be covered..
When it's about the power dynamic of very rich men or women who have acted perhaps unlawfully and the alleged victim has been persuaded its in their best interest to take a sweetener and sign then that needs looking at..
In the case of sexual harassment in the work place and using an NDA to keep the victim quiet that's just plain wrong whatever way its looked at..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was inevitable his name would come out, the whole NDA issue needs looking at lest we end up with extremely rich people being above the law as it suits.. .
I disagree, if somebody takes the money they shouldn't then be allowed to freely talk.
It's a complicated issue and where its about people not disclosing sensitive information about a previous company's products, plans etc then yes that can be covered..
When it's about the power dynamic of very rich men or women who have acted perhaps unlawfully and the alleged victim has been persuaded its in their best interest to take a sweetener and sign then that needs looking at..
In the case of sexual harassment in the work place and using an NDA to keep the victim quiet that's just plain wrong whatever way its looked at..
"
.
Yes I understand your point however the person has chosen to take the money to not talk.
I'd prefer they didn't but that's there choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was inevitable his name would come out, the whole NDA issue needs looking at lest we end up with extremely rich people being above the law as it suits.. .
I disagree, if somebody takes the money they shouldn't then be allowed to freely talk.
It's a complicated issue and where its about people not disclosing sensitive information about a previous company's products, plans etc then yes that can be covered..
When it's about the power dynamic of very rich men or women who have acted perhaps unlawfully and the alleged victim has been persuaded its in their best interest to take a sweetener and sign then that needs looking at..
In the case of sexual harassment in the work place and using an NDA to keep the victim quiet that's just plain wrong whatever way its looked at..
.
Yes I understand your point however the person has chosen to take the money to not talk.
I'd prefer they didn't but that's there choice."
Have been involved in representing people and its commonly accepted that in such circumstances some are in such a state with the effects of the harassment etc that they do not make the best decisions..
It's never as simple as saying they took the money or signed an agreement so that's the end of it..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hmmm no real surprise there then!.
I'm a bit disappointed at the lord's breaking courts ruling just because they can."
Philip Green has made enemies in Parliament, and behaved appallingly over the recent pensions debacle he oversaw when one of his companies went down the tubes recently. When someone like Ryan Giggs was named live on air in BBC Parliament television over his expensive gagging order a few years ago it's little surprise a low life like Green would have his name mentioned publicly in the chamber. The public couldn't give a shit about someone like Green. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hmmm no real surprise there then!.
I'm a bit disappointed at the lord's breaking courts ruling just because they can.
I'm more disappointed that the low life human, green has a title. Sir
"
Should have had his title removed over the recent pensions scandal he oversaw. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hmmm no real surprise there then!.
I'm a bit disappointed at the lord's breaking courts ruling just because they can.
I'm more disappointed that the low life human, green has a title. Sir
Should have had his title removed over the recent pensions scandal he oversaw. "
Agree whole heartedly  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hmmm no real surprise there then!.
I'm a bit disappointed at the lord's breaking courts ruling just because they can.
I'm more disappointed that the low life human, green has a title. Sir
Should have had his title removed over the recent pensions scandal he oversaw. "
This |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercury OP Man
over a year ago
Grantham |
There is a bigger question here though.
Three respected judges looked at the case and made their decision. Lord Hain decided that it was in the public interest not to respect that decision.
Do Parliamentarians think they can override the Judiciary? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is a bigger question here though.
Three respected judges looked at the case and made their decision. Lord Hain decided that it was in the public interest not to respect that decision.
Do Parliamentarians think they can override the Judiciary? "
Parliamentarians don't think they can override the Judiciary. They have the absolute power to override the Judiciary at any time they so wish, that is the meaning of Parliamentary Sovereignty. That is why MP's can claim Parliamentary Privilege at any time and demand that Parliament sit in judgement over them rather than any other court in the land.
This does seem to cause these sorts of spats between Parliament and the other arms of the state (executive and judiciary) every decade or so that seem to always lead to a demand to curtail the power of MP's. But our parliamentary system has took 600 years and a civil war to evolve and since 1649 has proven itself to be robust in curtailing the ambitions of would-be dictators compared to others round the world so don't fix what isn't bust. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Top man ....ripped of his own company...his workers ...his pension scheme...took the piss out of everyone ....does what he wants ..covers up using his money ...total twat ...and still he lords it around as sir ....shows just how weak the powers that be really are ...x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bigoted man that he is.
Deserves to lose some of his millions as well as his Title."
and that bloody big yacht .swanning about in it surely makes all those bhs employees he sold down the river livid |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is a bigger question here though.
Three respected judges looked at the case and made their decision. Lord Hain decided that it was in the public interest not to respect that decision.
Do Parliamentarians think they can override the Judiciary? "
It's a flaw within that legislation that allows some powerful rich people to avoid censure for their actions, the like of which you or I would face scrutiny..
It's bad legislation.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Also whilst I agree with what Peter Hain did, perhaps he or others will also use Parliamentary privilege to name and shame some in both Houses who have also been named by staff in the Palace of Westminster for similar allegations and for which similar gagging orders have taken place.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Also whilst I agree with what Peter Hain did, perhaps he or others will also use Parliamentary privilege to name and shame some in both Houses who have also been named by staff in the Palace of Westminster for similar allegations and for which similar gagging orders have taken place.. "
That would be a thing to see. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Also whilst I agree with what Peter Hain did, perhaps he or others will also use Parliamentary privilege to name and shame some in both Houses who have also been named by staff in the Palace of Westminster for similar allegations and for which similar gagging orders have taken place..
That would be a thing to see."
Long overdue.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bigoted man that he is.
Deserves to lose some of his millions as well as his Title.and that bloody big yacht .swanning about in it surely makes all those bhs employees he sold down the river livid "
Think he had the yacht before that , but i get your point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hmmm no real surprise there then!.
I'm a bit disappointed at the lord's breaking courts ruling just because they can.
I'm more disappointed that the low life human, green has a title. Sir
"
.
We have common ground. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bigoted man that he is.
Deserves to lose some of his millions as well as his Title.and that bloody big yacht .swanning about in it surely makes all those bhs employees he sold down the river livid
Think he had the yacht before that , but i get your point."
He hasn't got a yacht. It belongs to his Mrs.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read today that Peter Hain is retained as a paid adviser by the legal firm that acted on behalf of the Daily Telegraph in the injunction case.
"
I'm no lover of Green but Hain has really over stepped the mark on this one and should have (at least) declared his personal interest.
Had Hain been clean then the story would have been all about Green. However now, because of Hain's ties to the law firm, the story is all about abuse of parliamentary privilege.
Not a smart move by perma tan Pete. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is a bigger question here though.
Three respected judges looked at the case and made their decision. Lord Hain decided that it was in the public interest not to respect that decision.
Do Parliamentarians think they can override the Judiciary?
Parliamentarians don't think they can override the Judiciary. They have the absolute power to override the Judiciary at any time they so wish, that is the meaning of Parliamentary Sovereignty. That is why MP's can claim Parliamentary Privilege at any time and demand that Parliament sit in judgement over them rather than any other court in the land.
This does seem to cause these sorts of spats between Parliament and the other arms of the state (executive and judiciary) every decade or so that seem to always lead to a demand to curtail the power of MP's. But our parliamentary system has took 600 years and a civil war to evolve and since 1649 has proven itself to be robust in curtailing the ambitions of would-be dictators compared to others round the world so don't fix what isn't bust. "
Are you sure that is quite right-Parliamentary privilege is different to sovereignty isn't it - if Parliament seeks to overturn a law it has to be done by amending the relevant Act. The use of Parlimentary privilege to over-ride a legal ruling does actually set a controversial precedent because our judiciary is independent and deliberately separated from Parliament. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is a bigger question here though.
Three respected judges looked at the case and made their decision. Lord Hain decided that it was in the public interest not to respect that decision.
Do Parliamentarians think they can override the Judiciary?
Parliamentarians don't think they can override the Judiciary. They have the absolute power to override the Judiciary at any time they so wish, that is the meaning of Parliamentary Sovereignty. That is why MP's can claim Parliamentary Privilege at any time and demand that Parliament sit in judgement over them rather than any other court in the land.
This does seem to cause these sorts of spats between Parliament and the other arms of the state (executive and judiciary) every decade or so that seem to always lead to a demand to curtail the power of MP's. But our parliamentary system has took 600 years and a civil war to evolve and since 1649 has proven itself to be robust in curtailing the ambitions of would-be dictators compared to others round the world so don't fix what isn't bust.
Are you sure that is quite right-Parliamentary privilege is different to sovereignty isn't it - if Parliament seeks to overturn a law it has to be done by amending the relevant Act. The use of Parlimentary privilege to over-ride a legal ruling does actually set a controversial precedent because our judiciary is independent and deliberately separated from Parliament."
Anything said in parliament cannot be questioned in any court of law. In theory Parliament itself disciplines it's members. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There’s a suggestion now that Hain’s information was provided by an editor of the Telegraph. If true that would in itself be a breach of the injunction, which could have consequences for that editor.
Whatever our opinion of Green and whatever the rights and wrongs of the cases which led to the NDCs and the subsequent injunction against the Telegraph, we are in strange territory if we think that every member of the Houses off Parliament ( nearly two thousand of them including many you wouldn’t buy a used car from), is in a better position, intellectually and morally, to interpret the application of the law as it applies to individuals than senior judges.
I have been involved in agreeing NDCs myself. They are often a better way forward in difficult cases where the alternative may be dismissal of an individual with collateral damage to an organisation. An essential feature of such agreements is that the individual involved has adequate and independent legal advice before they sign. The judges in considering the injunction will certainly have examined that aspect of the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There’s a suggestion now that Hain’s information was provided by an editor of the Telegraph. If true that would in itself be a breach of the injunction, which could have consequences for that editor.
Whatever our opinion of Green and whatever the rights and wrongs of the cases which led to the NDCs and the subsequent injunction against the Telegraph, we are in strange territory if we think that every member of the Houses off Parliament ( nearly two thousand of them including many you wouldn’t buy a used car from), is in a better position, intellectually and morally, to interpret the application of the law as it applies to individuals than senior judges.
I have been involved in agreeing NDCs myself. They are often a better way forward in difficult cases where the alternative may be dismissal of an individual with collateral damage to an organisation. An essential feature of such agreements is that the individual involved has adequate and independent legal advice before they sign. The judges in considering the injunction will certainly have examined that aspect of the case."
NDA not NDC! ( blasted autocorrect!) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There’s a suggestion now that Hain’s information was provided by an editor of the Telegraph. If true that would in itself be a breach of the injunction, which could have consequences for that editor.
Whatever our opinion of Green and whatever the rights and wrongs of the cases which led to the NDCs and the subsequent injunction against the Telegraph, we are in strange territory if we think that every member of the Houses off Parliament ( nearly two thousand of them including many you wouldn’t buy a used car from), is in a better position, intellectually and morally, to interpret the application of the law as it applies to individuals than senior judges.
I have been involved in agreeing NDCs myself. They are often a better way forward in difficult cases where the alternative may be dismissal of an individual with collateral damage to an organisation. An essential feature of such agreements is that the individual involved has adequate and independent legal advice before they sign. The judges in considering the injunction will certainly have examined that aspect of the case."
I tend to agree.
Whilst I think parliamentary privilege is important, this was a very bad use of it.
As you say all the people affected had independent legal advice and their right to make a complaint to the police was specifically preserved. Moreover two of the complainants agreed that the whole thing should remain anonymous.
Added to that Hains statement that he was not aware the telegraphs solicitors were a firm he works for beggars belief. And even if it were true, their name is there on the first page of the court judgment, which suggests he can't have read it and is thus in no position to form an opinion on the case.
The judges carefully considered all competing interests and came to an interim conclusion. There was to be a full trial when the issues would be hammered out in more detail. Parliamentarians should really not interfere with that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ammskiMan
over a year ago
lytham st.annes |
"There’s a suggestion now that Hain’s information was provided by an editor of the Telegraph. If true that would in itself be a breach of the injunction, which could have consequences for that editor.
Whatever our opinion of Green and whatever the rights and wrongs of the cases which led to the NDCs and the subsequent injunction against the Telegraph, we are in strange territory if we think that every member of the Houses off Parliament ( nearly two thousand of them including many you wouldn’t buy a used car from), is in a better position, intellectually and morally, to interpret the application of the law as it applies to individuals than senior judges.
I have been involved in agreeing NDCs myself. They are often a better way forward in difficult cases where the alternative may be dismissal of an individual with collateral damage to an organisation. An essential feature of such agreements is that the individual involved has adequate and independent legal advice before they sign. The judges in considering the injunction will certainly have examined that aspect of the case.
I tend to agree.
Whilst I think parliamentary privilege is important, this was a very bad use of it.
As you say all the people affected had independent legal advice and their right to make a complaint to the police was specifically preserved. Moreover two of the complainants agreed that the whole thing should remain anonymous.
Added to that Hains statement that he was not aware the telegraphs solicitors were a firm he works for beggars belief. And even if it were true, their name is there on the first page of the court judgment, which suggests he can't have read it and is thus in no position to form an opinion on the case.
The judges carefully considered all competing interests and came to an interim conclusion. There was to be a full trial when the issues would be hammered out in more detail. Parliamentarians should really not interfere with that.
"
. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
