Sir Philip Green named as the #MeToo businessman by Peter Hain

[hungryhippie]

www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2018/oct/25/uk-information-watchdog-upholds-500000-facebook-fine-politics-live?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR1avtBthqxtnKC9PV1YUVCGgRBhL-YkBmns6B7LickuzqsG0PVnmO26fMo

Im not surprised to be honest

There's a surprise said no one ever.

As the guardian are reporting it, I'm guessing we are free to discuss on here?

I can't remember the last time I was less surprised by a big reveal. If I'd had a chance to put money on this, he would have been my first choice.

Its headline news on all news stations so I guess so Sarahconnor1

I wonder if I'm the only person who saw the thread title and thought he'd been given an award of some kind...

Known total bastard turns out

To be total bastard.

As the guardian are reporting it, I'm guessing we are free to discuss on here?

I understand that by being named in parliament, the injunction immediately becomes lifted.

On the positive side, Green might struggle to win a court case that this news has damaged his reputation. As far as I can see his reputation is so tarnished it's impervious to damage.

I had a hunch it was him.

Headline news on bbc r4, named in parliament.

Given the shadow pic on the Telegraph's story (that seemed to be a real one, rather than the generic shadow dude on the Daily Mail etc.), that was who I assumed it was..

This is not good in the way its come out. Despite what you might think.

Unfortunately this has a sting in the tail.

My father and I were just saying that, Red.

The law needs some correction but I'm not sure parliamentary privileged should be used in this way except in the most exceptional of cases.

privilege, even

Posted this in Westminstenders

The courts would have lifted the interim injunction by ruling public interest.

We now have no ruling in law which can be referenced in future because the Lord took it into his own hands at this stage.

It would have been better to wait for it to play out, and if necessary, revealed by parliamentary privilege if the telegraph had been unsuccessfully at the main ruling stage, which was to establish the concept of public interest.

So whilst it might look like the Lord has acted in a way which is in the public interest, in practice he might hVd done to the contrary.

It depends on what action is taken by parliament now, over the regulation of NDAs.

But you might want to bare in mind how many NDAs the government, Parliament and tory Party members and donors are currently hiding behind when you do that.

Others are pointing out this might jeopardise parliamentary privilege completely.

Yes, I would have preferred Parliamentary privilege not to have been used in this way. Either this is going to happen more, in which case it will be used abusively, or there's a risk that Parliamentary privilege will end up being restricted in some way.

This was an interim injunction against The Telegraph pending full trial. The Telegraph winning that trial would have been a much better way for this to come out.

Ahh, cross-posts. Too much mulling over by me.

Once again we are seeing how process is hugely important to the dynamic of democracy and the rule of law.

People might find that tiresome and beaucratic but ultimately its in our interests.

Allie Hogkin-Brown @ alliehbnews
BBC's @colemancr on Philip Green being named in Parliament as businessman at centre of Britain's #MeToo scandal says he's v. surprised at this development - 'the judiciary will feel that parliamentary privilege shouldn't be used to undermine the rule of law'

Agree Red.
Hidden agenda and PG is a convenient scapegoat.
It will now be argued that parliamentary privileges should be restricted and important items won’t be bought to our attention.
Actually very clever.
Someone’s been played and I think it may be the British public.

Phillip Green, huh.

What a surprise.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385640-topshop-take-down-feminism-pop-up

Ah. Him. This time.

This does look like a rubbish deal for the British public. On the positive side, we learn Green behaves abusively. That's not what I'd call a win. On the negative side, certain interest groups have been given ammunition to argue for Parliamentary privilege to be restricted. That's a lose for us.

The winners are people like Hain who can do "the big I am" and people who view Parliamentary privilege as a potential risk to their business.