Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

50 replies

hungryhippie · 25/10/2018 15:36

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

OP posts:
Effic · 25/10/2018 17:12

Its appalling that the law can be circumvented like this ....... how bloody arrogant to decide that you are above the law. The Politicians this country are becoming dangerously out of control. The law will now have to intercede and restrict parliamentary privilege as these arrogant people now clearly believe they are above the law ..... and when restrictions are put in place, that damages open democracy. Not that the politicians give a damn. How do these people get like this?? I despair ....... are they all appallingly Narcissistic utterly morally bankrupt people before they start or does the political system somehow make them this way.
I need to find a desert island to live on Sad

scotsheather · 25/10/2018 18:10

A powerful man abusing vulnerable young women. Nothing new isit.

The fightback continues.

RedToothBrush · 25/10/2018 18:17

Its appalling that the law can be circumvented like this .......

I actually believe in the value of parliamentary privilege. It just should be used extremely sparingly and with due consideration as a last resort.

BigotedWoman · 25/10/2018 18:35

Thanks Red as always for your analysis.

ResistanceIsNecessary · 25/10/2018 20:40

Telegraph article from one of the victims:

One woman, a well-known socialite, tells the #MeToo story of her encounter with a man she believes to be the unnamed businessman

It’s the late Noughties and I’m at a party filled with the great and the good, talking to a British businessman. He and I have met before on the odd occasion, but I don’t know him well - and certainly not well enough to feel comfortable with the fact that his arm is around my lower waist, edging towards my hip.

Still it’s late, the cocktails have been flowing all evening, and my boyfriend, who is standing opposite us, has just joined the conversation – so perhaps we’re all amongst friends here, and he’s just being warm, expansive, a little too tactile.

It’s really no big deal. Until the businessman, now chatting to my boyfriend, drops his hand to my thigh and slides it up beneath my dress to cup my rear. There it sits, proprietorially but also mockingly – you can’t see what I’m doing to your girlfriend right in front of your eyes – while the two men talk, until I feel I can move away without causing a scene.

“Why on earth didn’t you cause a scene?” asked my boyfriend, appalled, when I told him what had been happening whilst the two of them were having a chat in the cab on the way home.

“Why didn’t you slap him or ask him what the hell he thought he was doing?” And at first I couldn’t answer. I’ve always thought I could handle myself in those kinds of situations, but I viewed this man as powerful, and I’d heard of his appetite for revenge.

“I find him scary,” I said eventually. But there was something more: the way he’d done what he did was so seamless and entitled that it made you feel like you’d be "making a fuss" or (the misogynist’s favourite) "over-reacting".

He was like a medieval king who was testing the ripeness of a piece of fruit – and if he decided he liked it he’d have it, so convinced was he that everything and everyone around him was at his disposal. And doing it so flagrantly in front of the man I was with? That was a little bit of extra spice for him, that was him revelling in his power and laughing at the little people – because they didn’t matter.

Now I’m not going to pretend I was traumatised by the experience. When you’ve worked as a waitress prior to #MeToo, not much can shock you in terms of groping and harassment. But when, this time last year, the first Harvey Weinstein allegations were made public, and when more and more women were brave enough to add their names to the list, it re-ignited my fury at that man’s behaviour.

Because yes having his sweaty hand beneath my skirt was repulsive, but it was the power play involved that was the worst thing. He loved that I was scared. In fact I’ll bet a lot of the enjoyment for him was knowing that I would be too scared to say anything: that, not the handful of flesh, was what he was getting off on.

And I still hate that I was too scared to say anything. And now that I believe he has gagged the press with an injunction banning people from reporting his alleged harassment and racial abuse of staff, their silence can be ensured.

I’d heard talk of The Telegraph investigating allegations of sexual harassment surrounding this man in Spring of this year, but doubted any of them would come to light. He would find a way to bully these women into silence. And I remain convinced that any woman who did immediately "make a fuss" after similar experiences with him will have had reprisals in some shape or form.

Had they been employees he would probably have found a way to get rid of them, or make their jobs untenable. Had they been acquaintances he might have contented himself with vague threats, or simply found a way to embarrass them.

Like Harvey Weinstein, this wasn’t a man you went up against. And had it not been such a large number of women, the Hollywood movie mogul might never have been brought down. He would still be doing what had probably become the norm to him over decades.

Because with all the legal protection those kinds of men can afford – with the fortress of injunctions and NDAs they can build around themselves – they can feel safe to carry on as they please, can’t they? And carry on doing far worse things than what happened to me.

In accordance with the terms of the injunction imposed on The Telegraph we have not been able to confirm to the writer the identity of the businessman.

Iused2BanOptimist · 25/10/2018 21:39

I really hate it when the teen goes shopping in Top Shop. AIBU to ban her from ever shopping there again?

ConcreteUnderpants · 26/10/2018 09:34

AIBU board full of people applauding Hain.
Confused
I hope he has to defend his decision.

Electron1 · 26/10/2018 09:43

Would a court make a ruling that overturns an NDA? I am very skeptical that would happen. NDAs are a more valuable tool than women's right to redress is in business, so not much chance of that when corporate lawyers are paid so much to use them.

I think this was a good call, it's about time the use of NDAs in covering up sex crime is blown out of the water and I have no faith the judiciary would ever do that, they are designed by the legal system for the legal system and enforced by the legal system. a closed loop, it took an outsider to break that. Well done.

ConcreteUnderpants · 26/10/2018 09:53

I think in this case, they would've agreed it was in the public interest.
If not, why not disclose then. Why didn't he just wait a little while and see?

Electron1 · 26/10/2018 09:56

Injunction backed by NDA vs public interest is different to injunction vs public interest.

ConcreteUnderpants · 26/10/2018 10:10

Ok Electron, so why not disclose the 'secret' identity when the case had been settled in a few weeks instead of claiming his glory now and putting parliamentary provision at risk of being restricted?

nauticant · 26/10/2018 10:38

Would a court make a ruling that overturns an NDA? I am very skeptical that would happen.

An NDA is just a contract, it isn't a special magical thing. Courts have had the power to strike out unfair contract terms for a very very long time.

I agree with ConcreteUnderpants, what's been gained by releasing this information now rather than waiting until the outcome of a trial? As opposed to what's been put at risk?

This has been more about showboating and entertaining the public than it has been about the law working in the public interest.

RedToothBrush · 26/10/2018 10:57

Would a court make a ruling that overturns an NDA? I am very skeptical that would happen.

The injunction against the telegraph was a temporary one, before it went to court to rule whether it was in the public interest to know or not.

So the injunction wasn't supporting the NDA as such. It was an injunction before a judgment was made as to its validity.

Its important to understand the difference.

There are previous legal rulings which have established that if something is in the public interest to know, then you CAN ignore legal instruments that are designed to silence you.

In this case, it would be helpful to have a ruling that NDAs can not be used as a means to prevent a possible criminal activity such as sexual harassment.

It would clarify the law a lot more, and stop legal firms giving powerful men advice that they can use these and buy off people as a way to circumnavigate the law.

I find it hard to believe that a judge would ultimately rule in favour of someone who has hidden behind an NDA which is about sexual harassment because it undermines the rule of law and creates a situation where the law is different for rich people.

The judge imposed the injunction because there was a possibly that that a judge would rule the other way. It doesn't matter how tiny that was. You need to apply the idea of beyond doubt that its the right thing when you make a legal ruling. However thats more to do with the rule of law and wanting the case to be properly heard in court to be robust in this particularly area - and to possibly to create a much needed legal landmark - rather than simply ruling that all NDAs are illegal.

The nuance and complexity of having a ruling about ensuring a future ruling is spot on, isn't straightforward but its important.

The Telegraph were talking the line they were confident they would overturn the original ruling, and I have to say, I share that opinion because if it didn't it would grossly undermine freedom of speech and the rule of law. We'd all be subject to the risk of abuse because we could be paid off, and the concept of it being wrong would be removed from law.

Electron1 · 26/10/2018 11:08

I find it hard to believe that a judge would ultimately rule in favour of someone who has hidden behind an NDA which is about sexual harassment because it undermines the rule of law and creates a situation where the law is different for rich people.

I find it hard to believe the opposite.

Meanwhile, it has dawned on the Gvt that NDAs are used by employers with the backing of the legal system to cover up crime.

From the Times
On the issue of non-disclosure agreements, Theresa May vowed on Wednesday to bring forward a consultation “to seek to improve the regulation around NDAs and make it absolutely explicit to employees when an NDA does not apply and when it cannot be enforced”.

So in 10 years time the gov will finally get around to suggesting that NDAing sex crime is a bad thing.

In the meantime it's left in place as a form of intimidation unless you are wealthy enough to get a court to over turn this (a very expensive special magic trick).

I think I like what Hain has done better thanks.

Electron1 · 26/10/2018 11:13

Yes, I do know that an NDA is not "a special magic thing". I thought magic was entertainment?

But you are describing parliamentary privilege as entertainment? Mmm.

nauticant · 26/10/2018 11:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

IcedPurple · 26/10/2018 11:30

Because yes having his sweaty hand beneath my skirt was repulsive, but it was the power play involved that was the worst thing. He loved that I was scared. In fact I’ll bet a lot of the enjoyment for him was knowing that I would be too scared to say anything: that, not the handful of flesh, was what he was getting off on.

I'll bet every penny of "Sir" Philip's fortune that this is 100% correct.

If it was just copping a feel that he was after, he is rich enough to afford all the high-class hookers he could ever want, every night of the week. His wealth also means that he could probably have consensual relationships with women who enjoy the prestige and side benefits of being with a rich man. Ditto with most of the other men accused in the "Me Too" allegations.

But that isn't what they want. They want to humiliate and scare women. The message is "I'm violating your dignity and personal space. And there's nothing you can do about it."

ConcreteUnderpants · 26/10/2018 11:46

*RedToothBrush : In this case, it would be helpful to have a ruling that NDAs can not be used as a means to prevent a possible criminal activity such as sexual harassment.

It would clarify the law a lot more, and stop legal firms giving powerful men advice that they can use these and buy off people as a way to circumnavigate the law.*
^^

And totally agree with you, IcedPurple

R0wantrees · 26/10/2018 13:34

As an aside, I have been considering this article a great deal of late and noticed yesterday this comment on Peter Hain:

'How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?'
By Tom de Castella & Tom Heyden
BBC News Magazine
27 February 2014
(extract)
"When Peter Hain, then president of the Young Liberals, described paedophilia as "a wholly undesirable abnormality", a fellow activist hit back. "It is sad that Peter has joined the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade. His views are not the views of most Young Liberals."

And when a columnist supported Hain in the Guardian he was inundated with mail from people - many willing to give their name - who defended sex with children.

Reading the newspapers of the time there is a palpable anxiety that PIE was succeeding." (continues)
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

He has an interesting political history: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hain

RedToothBrush · 26/10/2018 15:35

Legal Cheek @legalcheek
Exclusive: Lord Hain is paid adviser to law firm that represented The Telegraph in Sir Philip Green injunction case

www.legalcheek.com/2018/10/lord-hain-is-paid-adviser-to-law-firm-that-represented-the-telegraph-in-sir-philip-green-injunction-case/
Exclusive: Lord Hain is paid adviser to law firm that represented The Telegraph in Sir Philip Green injunction case

This is not good.

RedToothBrush · 26/10/2018 15:37

inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/what-lord-peter-hain-didnt-consider-when-he-rushed-to-name-name-philip-green/
What Lord Peter Hain didn’t consider when he rushed to name Philip Green There are conflicting interests and considerations of public policy, free speech, evidence and law which deserved a fair hearing

By the Secret Barrister

ConcreteUnderpants · 26/10/2018 18:23

Hmmmm.
Hain- "I categorically state that I was completely unaware Gordon Dadds were advising the Telegraph regarding this case."

Title page of judgement he is talking about (in bold)- "instructed by Gordon Dadds LLP for the Respondent"
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2329.html

Either Hains is lying or he has criticised the judgements before reading it.
Which one, I wonder??

Stripybeachbag · 27/10/2018 22:43

On the issue of non-disclosure agreements, Theresa May vowed on Wednesday to bring forward a consultation “to seek to improve the regulation around NDAs and make it absolutely explicit to employees when an NDA does not apply and when it cannot be enforced”.

Slightly off-topic, but aren't the government using non-disclosure agreements with contractors and maybe civil servants? The instance that I can definitely remember is a meeting between the road haulages regarding Brexit. Also, it think that it has been reported that the work and pension secretary has been using them for universal credit (?).

RedToothBrush · 27/10/2018 23:02

In a word yes.

It's another reason a legal ruling on NDAs must have been of use.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread