PDA

View Full Version : Mr Geezer/Green


Peter-RB
17th Jun 2016, 14:05
Did anyone watch this 6 hour interview with the Parliamentary Accounts Committee re the sad case of BHS and its 21000 pensioners. I watched a small (1 hour) stint and really found it incredible that we have some Captains of industry who appear to act and talk like Arthur Daly, the only thing missing was the Jag, Terry the minder and a snifter at the Winchester Club.....:eek:

Fareastdriver
17th Jun 2016, 14:57
some Captains of industry who appear to act and talk like Arthur Daly,

They started off as Arthur Dalys

Out Of Trim
17th Jun 2016, 16:47
Would you buy a used company from him? :{

hiflymk3
17th Jun 2016, 17:30
Pirates of industry more like.

G-CPTN
17th Jun 2016, 17:40
You don't achieve the sort of position of the subject person by being Mr Nice, however,he should have realised when to ameliorate his behaviour - but I suspect that isn't able.

Several reports of how he was behaving to type, being unused to being challenged . . .

Where's this conversation taking us? Sir Philip Green and the BHS pensions crisis (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/16/wheres-this-conversation-taking-us-sir-philip-green-and-the-bhs/).

vulcanised
17th Jun 2016, 17:54
Just another nasty trying to outdo Robert Maxwell.
.
.

yellowtriumph
17th Jun 2016, 18:06
The thing that doesn't quite make sense in my mind is what were the pension trustees doing about the deteriorating pension fund situation? Whilst there has been a suggestion that the figures the trustees were getting from the BHS management weren't necessarily accurate or truly representative of the companies position, it was
incumbent on them to get their own figures and professional advice.


The trustees have many responsibilities on their shoulders but perhaps chief among them was the covenant with the sponsoring employer. That's not to say it wouldn't have all gone t*ts up anyway.

G-CPTN
17th Jun 2016, 18:42
Sir Philip bought BHS in 2000 for £200m. As a company it was not performing well but its two defined benefit pension schemes were in surplus.
Today they have a combined deficit - that's the difference between what they need to pay out over the coming years and how much they have - of £571m. That's what is called the "buy-out cost", a conservative estimate made by insurance companies looking to plug the hole.
Some have accused Sir Philip of taking too much money out of BHS - money that could have been invested in the company to modernise it and boost the pension fund.
BHS paid out £414m in dividends to shareholders.
Most of this money went to Sir Philip Green and his immediate family, the owners of BHS.From:- BHS: Where has all the money gone (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36143599)?

broadreach
17th Jun 2016, 19:26
I watched a little over an hour of the interrogation. Regardless of Green's innocence or guilt, "kangaroo court" comes to mind. I'd have thought there'd be a better way to resolve such issues.

Flyingmac
20th Jun 2016, 10:19
People don't seem to realise that Mr Green has some seriously high overheads.


Despite the falling demand for private air travel, former BHS owner Sir Philip Green has bought himself a £45million jet. The billionaire, who last year sold the troubled retailer for £1 to former bankrupt Dominic Chappell, has splashed out on a Gulfstream G650 aircraft.

There's this too.
Philip Green's 90 meter yacht Lionheart and his two other luxury yachts (http://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht/superyacht_lionheart.html)

radeng
20th Jun 2016, 10:48
The late Lord Weinstock was by no means universally popular, but when setting up the Stanhope Pension Trust to look after the GEC pensions, he had it as a rule that no more than 5% of the assets were to be held in shares, bonds or debentures of GEC or GEC owned companies. This avoided some of the shenanigans over pension funds that has subsequently appeared, such the Mirror Group, BHS and others. One has to respect Lord Weinstock for that approach.

yellowtriumph
20th Jun 2016, 18:05
radeng

The Pension regulator has very strict rules on pension funds investing in the employers business:

"Limitations on investing in the employer's business

'Employer-related' investments (often called 'self-investment') include shares in the employer's business and acquiring property used in the business, such as the premises from which the business operates.

You can only invest in the business of the employer in limited circumstances. For most schemes, you cannot normally invest more than 5 per cent of the scheme's assets in employer-related investments. Any such investment can only be justified by the expected return to the scheme, which must be at least as good as could be produced by another comparable investment.

Prohibited employer-related investments

Certain employer-related investments are not allowed at all. These include:

loans to the employer;
guarantees over loans or other financial arrangements involving the employer and connected or associated people;
transactions at less than their normal market value; and
certain loan arrangements with third parties which involve the employer."

I am not aware of any suggestion that the BHS pension fund broke any these investment rules. Many large pension schemes have rules forbidding any direct investment in the sponsoring employer business. A very good rule for the reasons you clearly made.

Peter-RB
21st Jun 2016, 06:54
Being like many and unable to sleep for long, I have now over the last two night watched and listened to all of the Parliamentary committee, questioning and discussions with the "Geezer", I know one has to be aware of what you can and cannot say on Pprune.......but if this chap said it was Sunday.. I would need the Clergy or a Priest to confirm it , sad init, right.! OK Got that, were the main answers to serious questions..! :ugh:

Flying mac,
That interactive map on vessel's is brilliant..!:ok:

Peter-RB
22nd Jun 2016, 14:00
Addendum to main protagonist story:

Opp's! it now seem the Parliamentarian's on said committee have already written to Geezers struggle and strife, asking for sight of all records of the business owned by her...but run by the Geezer,....it could be entering sphincter puckering times ahead for a few of the involved...:suspect:

Effluent Man
22nd Jun 2016, 14:51
Not to defend Green but I have experience of a profitable business going down the tubes in the second decade of the 21st century. I had been successfully running my garage business since the late seventies and when the 2008 crisis hit I lost something in the order of 70% of turnover in the ensuing five year period.

In my case it wasn't serious and I branched out into other areas but I can only imagine the trauma if you were running a retail business with several thousand employees.

charliegolf
22nd Jun 2016, 17:45
EM: did you shaft everyone but yourself before closing. I suspect not.

Effluent Man
23rd Jun 2016, 06:24
[QUOTE=charliegolf;9416335]EM: did you shaft everyone but yourself before closing. I suspect not.[/QUOT

One of my employees felt that I did. Despite the fact that I had taken him on after he had sold his own body shop business for housing development some ten years previously he seemed to think that I had some kind of obligation to carry on employing him even though my own body shop was losing money.

My own problem there was almost solely the fault of insurance companies leaning on their customers to take work to "Approved repairers" where the work was often done on the cheap with badly matched paint jobs etc. No, I accept that Green pulled a fast one but there must be thousands of businesses out there where the owners didn't react quickly enough and subsequently took a bath.

G-CPTN
25th Jul 2016, 20:01
Philip Green demands 'immediate apology' from Frank Field (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36889819).

Cazalet33
25th Jul 2016, 20:30
The fact that there is not the slightest chance of criminal proceedings against this sumbitch is a very damning indictment of the way the City of London does business.

Give him a Masters Medal from some dodgy "Honourable" Dressers and Diners Club, I say.

Peter-RB
25th Jul 2016, 21:33
I feel that the Gong will be goin very soon, wara shame,.. Geezer and Struggle just plain Mr and Mrs Green....somehow it dont have the same ring when one is alighting from one's Super Yacht ..to be announced as Mr & Mrs Green, still look on the bright side they may go into the med to rescue a few thousand Ex Libyan Refugees, then they may do another trip to bag a few more thousand at a time.

I am certain somewhere they will have a warehouse full of purloined BHS trews and jumpers they can sell to said cash loaded economic migrants.. trouble could also hit from the Prince in Monte C...apparently he dosn't like people drawing attention to the Tax regime down there..int life Grand ;)

Tankertrashnav
25th Jul 2016, 22:37
apparently he dosn't like people drawing attention to the Tax regime down there..int life Grand

Seriously? There must be tribes in the upper reaches of the Amazon whose members who know that Monaco is a tax haven inhabited by sleazeballs from every human endeavour - sport, commerce, politics, the lot. Somebody needs to tell HRH that it's a bit late to keep quiet about the sort of place he is running

radeng
25th Jul 2016, 23:52
yellowtriumph

Were those the regulations in 1972?

That's when Wienstock introduced them for the Stanhope Pension trust....

Peter-RB
29th Jul 2016, 12:04
It appears that Geezer may not be able to pay any funds into the neglected Pension plan of the now failed BHS group, it seems if he offers any money to be paid into that scheme..the HMRC ( UK tax authority) will want to have their share of what Tax was bypassed to obtain that volume of money in the first place...

So if from the goodness of his heart ( and want to keep his Knighthood) if he offers say £400 m... to the liquidator for the pensions top up, then its quite possible the Tax man who was thwarted originally would possibly want the same amount , or even more... if they slap on penalties for not paying tax originally ..

Int life Grand for such as Geezer, sitting on his latest yacht, perhaps he may start "Greens Yacht Tours" for all the ex members of the BHS empire..:ok:

vctenderness
29th Jul 2016, 13:24
Have no sympathy for Green however watching a bunch of greasy, useless politicians interrogate him over his finances is beyond parody.

These leeches who claim everything they can, including the cost of a poppy, and rob the taxpayer blind at every turn should, themselves, face interrogation. The sums are on a different scale but what is the difference between Green paying a large dividend to his wife in Monanco and a MP paying his wife and children a salary out of expenses?

A recent report says that the levels of claim made by the MP's now exceeds those at the time of the expenses scandal.

I remember one MP had claimed for three expensive digital cameras in December of that year, obviously Christmas presents. The then chancellor responsible for taxation, Alastair Darling, was flipping houses at an extraordinary rate in order to avoid tax!

They claimed for every tiny thing including in one case 5p for a carrier bag!

Green just does it on a bigger scale.

Peter-RB
29th Jul 2016, 14:13
VC..
You are of course right on what you say about the MPs and others who suck on the splashes from their plates, but ante it so with all the so called Political Class, both Tory, Labour(possibly not much longer if the continue the self immolation of them selves) Lib and even now the Greens who are on that free money list, Local Labour councillors who are local to me all have businesses, but still manage to take up to £60 k a year in so called costs and exs... they all do that despite our ability to to check what they take..

But the Green types and sorts,.. do it behind the conniving hands and eyes of top of the Range Accountants and Lawyers(all named in the Parliamentary grilling) who will sell their grannies for a sheckle or two......at least with Politicos we have the ability to check up what they take..

Cazalet33
29th Jul 2016, 15:13
I only encountered mullet man personally once.

It was in early October 2008 in Reykjavik.

Krapthing, Hankipankibanki and Glitzi had all gone tits up. He was desperately trying to retrieve untold numbers of millions from his bank accounts there. He was quite literally yelling into two mobile phones at once, demanding immediate meetings. "Don't you realise who I am?" was one rant I heard him say. I actually thought that his apoplexy was some kind of fit or seizure.

He really cares about money, that guy. Quite passionate, actually.

I got the impression that the man is an arsehole. Empty, as a human being.

Peter-RB
29th Jul 2016, 16:04
You are Bang, he does come over that way, and I have only heard and seen him fleetingly on the box... Description correct to a Tee..:ok:

er340790
29th Jul 2016, 16:16
a very damning indictment of the way the City of London does business.

Self-regulation is sooooo important, dontcha know? :oh: ;) :yuk:

yellowtriumph
29th Jul 2016, 21:38
yellowtriumph

Were those the regulations in 1972?

That's when Wienstock introduced them for the Stanhope Pension trust....
I would not think they were enforceable regulations in 1972 as that predates the Pension Regulator by decades. I'm not at all sure there would have been much in the way of regulation at the time.

By what you say Lord Weinstock would have been very forward thinking.

Things have moved on immensely since the days of Robert Maxwell in terms of the legislation surrounding pension schemes - thank goodness.

With regard to the bhs scheme, I'm really surprised the Pension Regulator did not raise all sorts of flags when it was suggested that recovery plan for the scheme was set to be 20+ years. Something not right here at all, the regulator usually looks at a recovery plan and says either go back to the drawing board and think again or makes no comment. - tPR never usually says anything positive about a recovery plan as I presume it presumes they approve of it and that might lead to a future claim against them if a scheme subsequently goes down the pan.

Cazalet33
29th Jul 2016, 21:56
He and his wife have pocketed hundreds of millions.

What's the City going to do? Plead for some of it to be returned to the pockets of the banksters in the City?

Peter-RB
7th Aug 2016, 16:12
According to the Telegraph, Geezer,.. who is currently on a rather large boat looking for refugees in the Med,.. is going to be investigated right back to the year 2000 including his current companies, "oops" I bet he didn't think that would happen, time for plan X:suspect:

G-CPTN
7th Aug 2016, 20:20
According to the Telegraph, Geezer,.. who is currently on a rather large boat looking for refugees in the Med,.. is going to be investigated right back to the year 2000 including his current companies, "oops" I bet he didn't think that would happen, time for plan X:suspect:
Didn't Robert Maxwell have a solution?

Peter-RB
8th Aug 2016, 10:11
Yeah he did!.. the Maxwel possibly was testing out his theory about being "God"..only the water was to deep where he put his theory to the test..!:D

sitigeltfel
18th Aug 2016, 07:56
Sky News have been repeating a sequence this morning where a film crew try to come alongside his megayacht for an interview only to be rebuffed by the crew. They then manage to doorstep him when he comes ashore with the inevitable argy bargy of pushing and shoving and wobbly camera shots. It is well known that he has big yachts and loads of money, but what did it achieve, apart from giving the journalist and film crew a few days in the Mediterranean sunshine?

Martin the Martian
18th Aug 2016, 12:09
Keeps it in the public eye, gives him a bit of frustration and reminds him that it will not go away.

charliegolf
18th Aug 2016, 14:10
Keeps it in the public eye, gives him a bit of frustration and reminds him that it will not go away.

Quite: it's not tomorrow's chip paper yet!

747 jock
18th Aug 2016, 14:25
Keeps it in the public eye, gives him a bit of frustration and reminds him that it will not go away.

Quite: it's not tomorrow's chip paper yet!

Who needs newspapers/chip papers when you have the internet!

Cazalet33
18th Aug 2016, 15:12
Thanks to some EU edict or other, chippies are no longer allowed to wrap a fish supper in newspaper.

I dunno whether I'm breaking a law, but in the earth closet I have beside my river I have strung 8" squares of The Scotsman and The Times for the wiping of the arse. Very satisfactory and really quite appropriate.

I really should look out for piccies of mullet man in newspapers for a position of honour at the top of the stack.

G-CPTN
18th Aug 2016, 15:48
Thanks to some EU edict or other, chippies are no longer allowed to wrap a fish supper in newspaper.
Printing ink is not 'food grade'.

'Newsprint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsprint)' without printing is perfectly allowable.

Cazalet33
18th Aug 2016, 16:16
Oddly, newsprint which is printed with news is worth less than newsprint which isn't. Hence, chippies never used newsprint, only newspaper.

Go figure!

I can't afford to buy newsprint for my riverside dunny, hence the use of The Scotsman and The Murdoch Times for the wiping of a runny botty and for the wrapping of the grandkids nappies.

Peter-RB
20th Oct 2016, 19:43
Opps.
t now seems all the Ladies in Parliament are speaking with nearly one voice to strip Geezer of his Gong.... a bit late in the day to show that sort of Bravery..Init

G-CPTN
28th Feb 2017, 16:19
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/585945-mr-green.html


Sir Philip Green strikes BHS pension deal with regulator (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39118566).


Sir Philip Green (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Green).

vctenderness
28th Feb 2017, 16:27
How come Dominic Chappell, who was the owner of BHS when it went bust, is not liable for the Pension fund?

He seems to get away without taking any flak from anyone.

Peter-RB
28th Feb 2017, 16:53
I would still strip the greaseballl of his Gong, just to show others in similar places that it can and will be done..:D

Also the Dom Chappell guy was the Patsy who took the bait ..didn't realise he was swimming with Sharks :eek:

ORAC
28th Mar 2018, 08:27
Sir Philip Green cleared over BHS collapse as Dominic Chappell faces directorship ban (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sir-philip-green-cleared-over-bhs-collapse-as-dominic-chappell-faces-directorship-ban-zwfds7kng)

Sir Philip Green will not face a ban as a company director after he was cleared by the Insolvency Service of wrongdoing related to the collapse of BHS.

The Insolvency Service confirmed yesterday that it would take no action against the billionaire or four other directors who had worked at BHS before its sale for £1 to a consortium led by Dominic Chappell, who had been declared bankrupt three times.

The agency is seeking lengthy bans preventing Mr Chappell and other directors of his Retail Acquisitions consortium from serving as company directors. The Insolvency Service’s fast-tracked investigation was one of the biggest in its history. The inquiry into the conduct of BHS directors was ordered in 2016 by Sajid Javid, then business secretary, in the first of a number of ministerial interventions in the aftermath of the retailer’s sale......

A spokesman for the Insolvency Service confirmed that it had written to Mr Chappell and three other former directors of BHS informing them that it would seek to have them disqualified as company directors. He said that “leading counsel had confirmed all our findings”, adding: “We can confirm that we have written to Sir Philip Green, a former director of BHS, informing him that we do not currently intend to bring disqualification proceedings against him.”

Sir Philip welcomed the decision by the Insolvency Service. Mr Chappell did not respond to a request for comment.

Sallyann1234
28th Mar 2018, 10:21
Sir Philip welcomed the decision by the Insolvency Service. Mr Chappell did not respond to a request for comment.
How does someone get to be bankrupt three times?
It's a way of dumping your debts onto your creditors and possibly leaving them bust as well.
No-one should be allowed to do that to innocent people more than once.

Curious Pax
28th Mar 2018, 13:16
How does someone get to be bankrupt three times?
It's a way of dumping your debts onto your creditors and possibly leaving them bust as well.
No-one should be allowed to do that to innocent people more than once.

Could be worse. There’s a guy in the US had 6 bankruptcies!

charliegolf
28th Mar 2018, 18:27
Could be worse. There’s a guy in the US had 6 bankruptcies!

Is his name Donald?

CG

ORAC
28th Mar 2018, 18:52
There is a list of US presidents who went bankrupt first - including Jefferson and Lincoln...

Curious Pax
25th Oct 2018, 16:38
As if Green didn’t come across as odious enough, he’s now been named under parliamentary privilege as the businessman that has been gagging the Daily Telegraph from publishing details of bullying and sexual harassment allegations against him.

cavortingcheetah
25th Oct 2018, 16:55
I'm quite sure that Peter Hain has his own motive for bringing the stoat out of the sack and equally certain that the public interest has less to do with it than his own.

Pontius Navigator
25th Oct 2018, 17:11
Some times MPs get it right.

Until he was named there would be rumours about other prominent and innocent businessmen, Well done Peter Hain.

BAengineer
25th Oct 2018, 17:29
I dont understand what it has got to do with Peter Hain. If a Judge thinks the guy deserves a gagging order why is Peter Hain getting involved and overruling his Lordship.

Pontius Navigator
25th Oct 2018, 19:56
Why him? No idea.

What he right? Undoubtedly.

First, others will be warned of encouraged to come forward. Second, several other businessmen could have been suspected and had their character trashed

oxenos
25th Oct 2018, 21:27
. If a Judge thinks the guy deserves a gagging order

The judge will have ruled only on the legal validity of the order, not whether the "guy" deserved it.
Justice and legality are not the same thing, particularly when expensive lawyers get brought in.

teeteringhead
25th Oct 2018, 21:42
Justice and legality are not the same thing, particularly when expensive lawyers get brought in. Exactly so; as proved recently by David Beckham.

So much for the "role model for yoof and potential Knight of the Realm"..........

Tankertrashnav
26th Oct 2018, 11:14
Some times MPs get it right.

Actually he is now in the House of Lords, where I assume the same rules of parliamentary privilege apply.

flash8
26th Oct 2018, 12:01
Green is undoubtedly one of many who no doubt now are thinking twice about NDA's (and regretting previous ones).... one particular clownish politician must be worried...

cavortingcheetah
26th Oct 2018, 12:21
Green, loathsome as one might find him, is innocent of whatever he might be accused of until he is proven guilty. That's the law in England and the foundation from which flows the administration of justice. Peter Hain has previously escaped charges on a party political corruption charge and also successfully avoided a contempt of court prosecution. That in no way implies that he is guilty of either, for in neither case was his culpability proven. Nonetheless, it is amusing to speculate as to why such a man should abuse parliamentary privilege to traduce another when he himself is perhaps less than crystalline in character. Perhaps women have something to do with it all?

Slfsfu
26th Oct 2018, 12:40
I beg to differ. Three judges who heard the case and read the documents commented, in their judgement, that the "other party" (for want of better definition) had been afforded full legal support and had not been pressured into signing the NDA. The other party had freely accepted the payment. Hain was wrong to use Parliamentary privilege to subvert the ruling of the Court. (He also has much to answer for with regard to a particular African country and how well that turned out)

In all of these cases much is made of the use of NDA's but don't forget that in each case "consideration" was paid yet nothing is said about repayment of that consideration. If this were about principle then don't sign the NDA, don't take the money and go to the police. Don't come back some years later bleating about how you've been hard done by

Fitter2
26th Oct 2018, 12:51
To a large extent it is about abuse of power. A multi-millionaire businessman can bury any action against him with lawyers who keep claimants at bay, unemployed (and quite possibly unemployable given available tactics) and they are cornered into the least worst option. The judges are upholding the law as Parliament wrote it, not morality.

One might regard the use of parliamentary privilege as a different form of abuse of power, since the individual has no recourse against it, but I can't recall or find an example where it has been unreasonably abused, including this case.

cavortingcheetah
26th Oct 2018, 13:01
This case was being being heard on appeal from a verdict that had gone against ABC, in favour of the Telegraph. The appeal centred around points of contract law which is not quite the same as the law as parliament wrote it. Green had paid money in exchange for which the people he had paid had agreed to sign a non disclosure agreement. They broke that agreement, in effect breaching their contract and the Telegraph wanted to profit from scandal mongering or truth telling, who knows which, as a result of that breach of contract. Green, loathsome as he might be is innocent here until proven guilty.
Much is being made of the ability of rich men to subvert justice. I fear to say that the very wealthy, the well connected, even union members and the corrupt have always been able to do this. To flash the green eye card, which is no less discriminatory than the race card, is simply to muddy the waters with that great local characteristic known as envy of the good fortune of others.

Curious Pax
26th Oct 2018, 13:31
I beg to differ. Three judges who heard the case and read the documents commented, in their judgement, that the "other party" (for want of better definition) had been afforded full legal support and had not been pressured into signing the NDA. The other party had freely accepted the payment. Hain was wrong to use Parliamentary privilege to subvert the ruling of the Court. (He also has much to answer for with regard to a particular African country and how well that turned out)


You could argue the same about BAe allegedly paying bribes to secure Saudi business - BAe and others seem to regard it as a necessary cost of business, and therefore were arguably not under duress to pay. Ultimately the payments by Green are bribes to stop the revealing of unsavoury alleged actions he has made, dressed up in legal niceties. It doesn’t make it morally acceptable.

Very telling that that a significant part of your argument is distress at the ending of apartheid, and the part that Hain played. Classy....

Slfsfu
26th Oct 2018, 16:56
Very telling that you got the wrong country.

Contract freely entered into with proper legal advice and allowed disclosure to appropriate bodies and/or in accordance with Law.

Nobody has commented on the payment received.

If we are country of Law, then his actions were an abuse of the Law.

These days too many things are determined by emotion, social media, and the mob. Too often the "voice of the people is that of a dog" (to paraphrase).

teeteringhead
26th Oct 2018, 17:31
"voice of the people is a dog"

vox populi vox canem

Oooh - it's a long time since I tried to make a joke in Latin......

oxenos
26th Oct 2018, 17:33
Suppose I commit a crime, perhaps robbing a bank, and then get people who know about this to keep quiet, by giving them money in return for signing an NDA. Would the courts then uphold the NDA?

Slfsfu
26th Oct 2018, 17:35
Glad to give you the opportunity teeteringhead:ok:

Re the NDA in the case of a crime - no they wouldn't uphold it. Law takes precedence over contract.

In this case, as the THREE judges noted in their judgement the NDA allowed disclosure to legal authorities and/or in compliance with the Law. (not that the latter was necessary due to precedence).

cavortingcheetah
26th Oct 2018, 18:01
Phillip Green is a poor Jewish boy made good. His role model, Charles Clore who died in 1974, was a poor Jewish boy made good. You want that they were both nice guys as well?
Don't be ridiculous.
Peter Hain has been caught out claiming to have had a lot of support from women for abusing parliamentary privilege. Will the Telegraph soon be carrying report of the breakdown of Hain's marriage and has the House of Lords become a Lonely Hearts hunting ground?

KelvinD
26th Oct 2018, 18:38
Re the NDA in the case of a crime - no they wouldn't uphold it. Law takes precedence over contract.
In this case, the allegations related to sexual and racial harassment, both of which are a crime so how did that work out? I noticed Hain said he had been contacted by one of those affected by the NDA and gave it a lot of thought before finally deciding to name Green in Parliament.
As for the Law Lords mentioning how the people affected by these NDA had been afforded sound legal advice and not pressured into signing agreements, which planet are they on? I have little doubt that the victims (for want of a better word) will find themselves falling foul of the legal aid provisions/restrictions and probably not in a position to pay a brief sacks full of cash. On the other hand, what is to stop a set of chambers, absolutely awash with cash (which would be recouped from the perpetrator anyway), making a call to a lowly, junior solicitor, just starting out in that world and saying something like: "I say, old chap. How are you fixed for a little chat over a spot of shepherd's pie and Krug? I would like to talk with you about some aspect of your work that has our attention and we could make it profitable for you"? In plain English "Here's a bung. That should help you out with that mortgage/car payment or whatever". Just make sure you assist your client in seeing how beneficial it would be for them to see things our way and accept the NDA".
There seems to be a broad acceptance in Parliament that the principle of the NDA, while designed for good reasons is being misused and steps should be taken to tighten up the use of the NDA. May I offer them a simple solution? An NDA is valid to stop disgruntled employees going to competitors with business related data or info. It can never be used to suppress reports of potentially criminal activities. There! A one paragraph answer!
Does anyone remember Mr. Green's coming to the headlines about 10 years or so back? Didn't he make the world's biggest single dividend payment to his company Arcadia? Over £1 Billion if I remember right. And not a farthing in tax as it all went to his wife.

Pontius Navigator
26th Oct 2018, 19:02
There is also the question of she (he) said, he said and would a bucket of money help resolve your complaint? If you thought you would not be believed, would be questioned by the police, challenged in court and generally had your character assassinated or given a bucket of dosh, what you most people do?

Today you would be given far more credibility and the process, still harrowing, would more likely be resolved in your favour. You might now feel you need justice but that NDA stops you from going back inn the deal.

Really there are no winners except you know who.

neila83
26th Oct 2018, 19:22
There is also the question of she (he) said, he said and would a bucket of money help resolve your complaint? If you thought you would not be believed, would be questioned by the police, challenged in court and generally had your character assassinated or given a bucket of dosh, what you most people do?

Today you would be given far more credibility and the process, still harrowing, would more likely be resolved in your favour. You might now feel you need justice but that NDA stops you from going back inn the deal.

Really there are no winners except you know who.

You make a good point, and you're right, and its the obvious rebuttal to all those male warriors who go 'but why didn't they say something?!'. I also know a lawyer who quite openly says that if he is defending an accused rapist he is 99% sure is guilty his strategy is character assassination of the victim. But that's Law 101. No, he's not my friend.

Knowing all we do about this guy though, does anyone really doubt it? We all know the type, we've all met them and avoided eye contact when possible, and it usually takes less cash and less ugliness than this guy had. Given all his misdemeanours, I'd say his time probably came long ago. The more people learn money doesn't buy you the right to treat the world, and its people, as your own, the better.

Chronus
26th Oct 2018, 20:37
It makes you wonder as to who in Who is Who will be worrying about the rides they had in this bloke`s super yacht or aeroplane. Anyone you know?

DaveReidUK
26th Oct 2018, 20:50
A couple of legal views on the affair, albeit reaching somewhat different conclusions:

In the public interest? NDAs after ABC (https://lawyerwatch.blog/2018/10/25/in-the-public-interest-ndas-after-abc/)

What Lord Peter Hain didn't consider when he rushed to name Philip Green (https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/what-lord-peter-hain-didnt-consider-when-he-rushed-to-name-name-philip-green/)

neila83
26th Oct 2018, 21:26
It makes you wonder as to who in Who is Who will be worrying about the rides they had in this bloke`s super yacht or aeroplane. Anyone you know?

Things could get very interesting,,,,there must be a lot of men sweating everywhere, and if they are,I guess they should be.

cavortingcheetah
26th Oct 2018, 22:14
From the excellent news article so thoughtfully linked by a previous poster:

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.

Peter Hain is being heinous-again.

KelvinD
27th Oct 2018, 00:06
It makes you wonder as to who in Who is Who will be worrying about the rides they had in this bloke`s super yacht or aeroplane. Anyone you know?
Regarding the aircraft; not too many, judging by what I saw at Luton a couple of years ago:
Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin////details.php?image_id=22543)
There he is, 2nd window along and not another soul to bother him!

BAengineer
27th Oct 2018, 00:58
I dont understand what it has got to do with Peter Hain. If a Judge thinks the guy deserves a gagging order why is Peter Hain getting involved and overruling his Lordship.

Well I found out what it has to do with Hain - he is being paid by the Lawyers representing the Telegraph who were fighting the gagging order.

Novel way to get around the Judge I suppose..

Slfsfu
27th Oct 2018, 09:00
Kelvin D states "In this case, the allegations related to sexual and racial harassment, both of which are a crime so how did that work out?'

They didn't go to the law - they went to a newspaper (wonder why that was :rolleyes:) had they gone to the law they would have been OK, as provided for in the NDA.

This is about Hain using Parliamentary privilege to name a person when the case is still being heard. An injunction prevents disclosure until the case is completed.

Hain was wrong

I don't hold any views on Green or the claimant. All I say is that if (as we claim) we are a country of Law then we should let the Law takes it's course.

sitigeltfel
27th Oct 2018, 09:05
This is about Hain using Parliamentary privilege to name a person when the case is still being heard.

This was about Hain publicising Hain.

cavortingcheetah
27th Oct 2018, 11:57
Peter Hain works for Gordon Dadds.
Gordon Dadds works for the Telegraph.
Peter Hain says that he had no idea that they did. If that's his concept of responsible research and integrity before an abuse of parliamentary privilege, he should be slung out of the House of Lords and Phill Green invited to take his place on the red benches.Gordon Dadds (http://www.gordondadds.com/) > Our People (http://www.gordondadds.com/our-people/) > The Right Honourable Lord Peter Hain of Neath
http://www.gordondadds.com/content/uploads/2016/06/570-x-600-Peter-Haines.jpgThe Right Honourable Lord Peter Hain of NeathGLOBAL AND GOVERNMENT ADVISER

About

Contact

I was appointed by Gordon Dadds in June 2016 to act as the firm’s Global and Government Adviser. As well as advising on governmental matters, I also play an active role in expanding Gordon Dadds’ international connections, with a particular focus on Africa and the Middle East.

Prior to joining the House of Lords in 2015, I spent 24 years as a Member of Parliament including 12 years in Cabinet as a Senior Minister, serving as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Energy Minister and Leader of the Commons. In 2007 I negotiated the end of the Northern Ireland conflict.

In my personal time I enjoy writing: I have authored twenty books to-date. I am also Visiting Professor at the University of South Wales and visiting Teacher at the Civil Service College.

London: +44 (0) 20 7493 6151
Cardiff: +44 (0) 29 2010 0950© Gordon Dadds LLP 2017 All Rights Reserved


London Office 6 Agar Street, London WC2N 4HN

Cardiff Office 47 Charles Street, Cardiff CF10 2GD

Hong Kong Office Unit A, 26/F, CKK Commercial Centre, 289 -295 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong