To tell you that it's Phillip Green who gagged the media! Named by MP using parliament privileges

[shouldidoitspoilt]

Disgraceful .

Karma is beautiful

Things like Peter Hain standing up and doing this shows that there are good reasons for retaining the House Of Lords.

bettedavis, it’s very poor form for you to try and start pretending you knew all along that she was involved and didn’t defend her.

You objected to her being referred to as a ‘sociopathic thug’ despite the fact that she is the company owner, every bit of Philip Green’s thuggery is done on her behalf as her enforcer. He is her employee. She has always had the power to stop it and has chosen not to because it benefits her. She is just as much a sociopathic thug as mafia bosses who send someone out to do the actual dirty work and threatening but don’t get their hands dirty.

You berated other posters for criticising her despite the fact she is the main mover in the tax evasion, she is the one who actively does it, she is the one who lied to MPs about it and she is the one who received the money. They may have colluded together to form the plan, but she is the one who actively does it, it couldn’t be done without her and she has the power to stop it at any time. How anybody can claim she is not the most culpable for the tax evasion is beyond me.

Yet you’ve repeatedly done it. That is defending her.

You’ve accused posters criticising her of misogyny and trying to push the blame onto women. That ignored the fact she is his employer and has turned a blind eye to this behaviour. And it also ignores the fact she has been involved in all the dodgy business practices and owned the companies where they happened. You minimised her role to financially benefiting when she was in fact actively involved.

Those are all defending her.

You’ve complained it’s sexist to ask why his wife didn’t stop him when SHE IS HIS EMPLOYER and owns all the companies which means she had a moral and legal obligation to stop him which she ignored.

That is defending her.

You’ve justified Ivanka Trump being attacked as a member of the Trump administration but apparently don’t see the hypocrisy of thinking Tina Green’s ownership of the companies doesn’t make her a legitimate target for criticism too.

It’s extremely poor form to then deny defending her and start pretending you’ve known about the extent of her involvement all along.

Do you know what would be really good form? Admitting you came blundering in not actually knowing anything about the story and had a go at posters because you were ignorant about the facts and had no idea that actually they weren’t the innocent little flowers you assumed they were.

And maybe say sorry to all the posters you accused of being misogynists who just wanted to put the blame on women when it’s actually very, very clear Tina Green does share the blame for many of the problems.

I actually think your instant assumption that they must be innocent dupes and couldn’t possibly be actively involved with the businesses far, far more misogynistic than any of the criticism of her.

If you remain supportive of a partner who has paid off women to not talk about his sexual abuse of them then that means you clearly don’t disagree with sexual abuse against women. So yep. Equally complicit.

Also, there is racial abuse and bullying of staff involved - if she has staff and she condones her husband’s behaviour of his staff then she is likely guilty of the same in her own right. So yep, equally complicit.

No surprise that Philip Green would be associated with these knd of allegations.

Surprised that it was him when he was named because I have no idea why he would be trying to get an injunction to protect his reputation. His reputation is as a man who cares nothing for the poor he exploits, including his own staff whose pensions he robbed, to make millions for himself and his wife. His reputation is as a man who has no moral integrity. He has been descrbed numerous times as a bully and the unacceptable face of capitalism. His step-son was sold BHS buildings a knockdown prices by him (whilst he emptied pension funds) and sold them on 3 months later making millions. Not a reputation that can be further damaged. We can't think less of him really.

His wife won’t give a shit as long as she can carry on using the credit cards, she has no conscience! She is probably glad that she doesn’t have to put up with him sniffing around her. Vile family

Ginger I have no idea what you are so incensed about, but since you have put a lot of time into this, I'll do my best to address your myriad points.

it’s very poor form for you to try and start pretending you knew all along that she was involved and didn’t defend her

Pretending I knew all along? Okay.

You objected to her being referred to as a ‘sociopathic thug

Yep. I object to name calling, full stop.

You berated other posters for criticising her

Can you cut and paste me actually berating other posters so I can reply more succinctly? Thanks.

How anybody can claim she is not the most culpable for the tax evasion is beyond me. Yet you’ve repeatedly done it. That is defending her

Again, these repeated examples of me actually defending Tina Green would be helpful here. As in, actually quoting me.

You’ve accused posters criticising her of misogyny and trying to push the blame onto women

Once again, sorry to be all fact-y about it, but can you quote those accusations aimed at other posters?

You minimised her role to financially benefiting when she was in fact actively involved

Where?

You’ve complained it’s sexist to ask why his wife didn’t stop him

No, I haven't. But happy to see that quote.

You’ve justified Ivanka Trump being attacked as a member of the Trump administration but apparently don’t see the hypocrisy of thinking Tina Green’s ownership of the companies doesn’t make her a legitimate target for criticism too

I haven't 'justified attacks.' I referred to 'her perceived complicity' and drew no comparison whatsoever.

Do you know what would be really good form? Admitting you came blundering in not actually knowing anything about the story and had a go at posters because you were ignorant about the facts and had no idea that actually they weren’t the innocent little flowers you assumed they were

You are making yourself sound silly and a bit unpleasant here. You have continually either misunderstood the thrust of my posts or you seem so determined to read something that's not there that you've lost your way a bit.

And maybe say sorry to all the posters you accused of being misogynists

If you can list the posters I accused of being misogynists, then I'm happy to.

I actually think your instant assumption that they must be innocent dupes

This kind of proves my point. I demonstrably haven't said anything even approaching this. You are convinced that I have a narrative that I simply don't.

...and couldn’t possibly be actively involved with the businesses far, far more misogynistic than any of the criticism of her

Eh?

Look. You seem to be continually labouring under the mistaken belief that failing to attack someone means that you must be defending them. I know that I haven't defended Tina Green because I think she's a repellant individual who is guilty of all kinds of things. But that doesn't blind me to being to see low-level misogynistic reporting and commenting. I can separate my dislike of an individual from a wider issue. Why are you so angry at that?

I'd be interested to see what quotes - actual quotes - not more made-up projections, you can find of mine that support your lengthy vitriol, but what you've failed to quote is my criticism of her. Because that doesn't quite fit with what you trying to pretend I've said, does it?

In fact, the only times I've referred directly to her has been negatively. And yet you insist that I've spent all this time defending her.

Anyway. People have different views. I have mine, you have yours. You seem very angry about me disagreeing with you, but this is MN and you know, life. People have different views.

Except oddly, we both think Tina Green has behaved very badly. Except my reluctance to personally attack her on a thread about her husband's sexual and racial misdemeanours has apparently angered you.

My entire take on this was about threads about men's crimes being partially laid at the door of women. Not tax evasion. Sexual assaults, bullying and racism. My posts are there for anyone to read. No personal attacks on posters, no name calling, just opinion.

Anyway. I think it's wisest to move on from this. Anyone who can be bothered can read the posts for themselves. But if you do want to continue throwing accusations at me, then can you do some cut-and-pasting instead of all this ^^?

Have a good evening.

Argh... I never do massively long posts - I know it's irritating on a thread. I got sucked in. I promise it will be my first and only one! .

No one here has blamed his wife for his alleged sexual and racist behaviour, however it’s not misogynistic to bring her behaviour, re tax into this thread, as it shows that she is as morally bankrupt as he is. This thread is about a man and his alleged vile behaviour, and that includes his tax dodging ways as they show his character clearly, and most people are angry about their behaviour as a whole.
Do you think that all women are prefect and any one who says otherwise is a misogynist?

however it’s not misogynistic to bring her behaviour, re tax into this thread, as it shows that she is as morally bankrupt as he is

PG is the one who is allegedly guilty of all of these appalling things, and yet it's descended into how culpable is his wife re: tax?

My whole point was broadly referring to insidious misogynistic reporting and commentating. That doesn't mean that I don't think TG is guilty of tax evasion. The two things can exist at the same time.

To state that I think there is underlying misogyny doesn't mean that I think TG is innocent of tax evasion.

Do you think that all women are prefect and any one who says otherwise is a misogynist?

Of course not.

I heard a story, from someone who worked for him back around 2002 ish that he’d walk around the backrooms of one of the Arcadia flagship stores smoking his cigars. These workplaces were non smoking and he’d have his assistant hold her hand out to catch his cigar ash.

Disgusting little man.

LuckyDiamond That's so horrible. Even with the cushion of immense wealth, how does someone become so arrogant and out of touch with what constitutes normal behaviour?

The trouble with boycotting “his” stores (it’s all owned by the wife anyway) is that it hurts the staff who do the real work. After he bought Arcadia he paid his wife a 1.3bn dividend in 2005 so they could live the billionaire lifestyle, so their fortunes are unlikely to be effected.
I just don’t understand how he’s lauded as this great businessman, his companies have a dodgy track record & he’s more of an asset stripper. He didn’t make Topshop what it is. He bought it when it was on the trajectory & much of that success was due to Jane Shepardson who then left and went to Whistles (& made that over). The one chain that needed a turn around was BHS, which he couldn’t do & his growth plans for Topshop in America (not franchise) have not delivered so he sold some of Topshop off. He hasn’t invested enough in the remaining Arcadia brands & there will also be pension liabilities when he decides to offload it.

I've just opened my popbitch email

Summer so say Phillip Green was to be jailed for a sexual assault - you’d be expecting his wife to be jailed too, for the same amount of time, because she knew about it but did nothing? Because she’s equally complicit?

AIBU to ban teen from ever shopping in Top Shop again?

Absolutely not! Don't forget Warehouse, Miss Selfridge etc too.

The day Tina Green bins her loathsome husband and gives HMRC a huge amount of money in compensation for all the tax she's dodged over the years, she'll be worthy of some degree of respect.

Until then, she's only marginally behind him in the greedy, amoral sleazeball stakes.

My entire take on this was about threads about men's crimes being partially laid at the door of women.

But by remaining his wife and supporting him in his business practices, she's condoning them. And if she hasn't noticed he's a sexist shit, she needs to open her goddamn eyes.

pumper, she is likely not guilty of a criminal offence so not equally complicit. But if a civil case was taken against her and her companies for failing to act and protect employees it may well be strong. It’s likely a civil case was settled out of court leading to the NDAs in the first place.

So while she’s not equally culpable, as the owner of the company, she does bear some responsibility.

I am not a fan of Hain for breaking the super injunction.

It was a temporary injunction imposed by the courts who had seen all the evidence and determined that the name shouldn’t be public until a full hearing. Not least because some of the victims feared a media circus and supported the injunction.

Hain, who had not seen all the evidence, decided he was in a better position to judge what is in the public interest. That would be one thing if this was a permanent injunction but it was temporary pending a full hearing. Hain is now being lauded a hero for disrespecting the court system and rushing to naming, counter to the wishes of some victims. Investigations of sexual harassment should be a victim led process.

I believe that the companies and doubtless offshore trusts are run by a ‘global’ finance business in Jersey. No one can see who the shareholders are (Jersey secret register) I will not name the huge company who have been speculated as running his affairs. I doubt if Mrs Green has any say in how the businesses are run, she lives in Monaco which is a hideous place and I believe he flys out there every night to avoid U.K. tax

I also agree well done Peter Hain.

I think serious questions should now be asked about why the courts allowed a rich man to get an injunction to conceal his activities. Something wrong here surely? There must be a public interest in not allowing concealment of activities of this nature.

If he was innocent then he could challenge the allegations in court like anyone else. He could have spent his half a mil doing that instead.

I also welcome the current look at NDA's which in my view should never be allowed to conceal unlawful behaviour or allegations of unlawful behaviour.

I think it's in the public interest. People who don't want to line the pockets of people who may be sexist and racist deserve to know when such allegations are made so that they can stop supporting their businesses.

So in this instance, I don't think parliamentary privilege has been abused.

I'm also fiercely opposed to the use of NDAs to stop people from telling their stories. There are legal remedies available to anyone who's been lied about, so it's only the guilty who need NDAs.

@citrusfruit9 it was a short term injunction pending a full hearing. There were complicated questions that needed considering, including the reluctance of victims to enter into a media circus & the fact that many had voluntarily entered into NDAs which needed considering. The court wasn’t saying he should never be named, but simply that it’s a complex case that needed a full hearing in a few weeks. There was no urgency to naming and the judges said that. Hain could have waited until the full court hearing which was being expedited. What did naming this month do that naming next month would not have done? It didn’t protect victims, it did boost Hain’s public profile.

Xenia,

I am curious what ‘pragmatic’ reason you use for a NDA. It is normally used because companies (or, to be more precise, normally senior people within them) have behaved badly and don’t want it revealed.

They are normally a way of using shareholders’ money to protect employees who should have been properly dealt with.