denislawsbackheel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 25,327
- Team supported
- We went to Rotherham…
Was it fuck
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Philip Green
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Was it fuck
Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
Forgive me if I have this wrong. Mr Green has several NDA with people? These people, apparently, are quite happy with said agreements. The Torygraph wanted to name him for having these agreements and the judiciary looked into and said no you can’t as these people, apparently, were quite happy with signing, they had competent, independent legal advice and at no point had been coerced into signing these contracts. Whether you agree with these contracts and what he did is up to you but the judiciary (the experts in law) upheld the injunction as the NDA also said that if the signees thought then or in the future that a law had been broken they were free to go to the police. Is this correct so far?
Lord Hain, in his wisdom, decides that he will be the judge of what is disclosed and what is not and used Parliamentary Privilege to name Mr Green. What right does he have to ride rough shod over the judiciary? Let’s face it they had spent a long time investigating this case and probably know a lot more about it than Lord Hain. Really makes me angry.
It may well be and probably is that Mr Green is the biggest sharletan imaginable but I want the law to take its course without tw@s like Hain going off like a loose cannon. Before you have a go at me just stop and think for a minute if he had been wrong and named someone perfectly innocent?
Lord Hain, in his wisdom, decides that he will be the judge of what is disclosed and what is not and used Parliamentary Privilege to name Mr Green. What right does he have to ride rough shod over the judiciary? Let’s face it they had spent a long time investigating this case and probably know a lot more about it than Lord Hain. Really makes me angry.
It may well be and probably is that Mr Green is the biggest sharletan imaginable but I want the law to take its course without tw@s like Hain going off like a loose cannon. Before you have a go at me just stop and think for a minute if he had been wrong and named someone perfectly innocent?
Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
Oh dear @denislawsbackheel perhaps you should look up why Parliamentary Privilege is there.
Its closed! Have to be at Burtons!Given Green’s unwillingness to comment, it’s a fair bet he already has a top legal team and a defence strategy in place. If anything sticks to this creep I’ll show my arse in BHS’s window.
Slimy minging ****
And some lumps on here probably see him as a hero!
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Damn. I had a tenner on Alan fucking Sugar.
Maybe he is just his apprentice lol
So in a nutshell the arsehole’s paid the complainants off ?? I wonder why.Forgive me if I have this wrong. Mr Green has several NDA with people? These people, apparently, are quite happy with said agreements. The Torygraph wanted to name him for having these agreements and the judiciary looked into and said no you can’t as these people, apparently, were quite happy with signing, they had competent, independent legal advice and at no point had been coerced into signing these contracts. Whether you agree with these contracts and what he did is up to you but the judiciary (the experts in law) upheld the injunction as the NDA also said that if the signees thought then or in the future that a law had been broken they were free to go to the police. Is this correct so far?
Lord Hain, in his wisdom, decides that he will be the judge of what is disclosed and what is not and used Parliamentary Privilege to name Mr Green. What right does he have to ride rough shod over the judiciary? Let’s face it they had spent a long time investigating this case and probably know a lot more about it than Lord Hain. Really makes me angry.
It may well be and probably is that Mr Green is the biggest sharletan imaginable but I want the law to take its course without tw@s like Hain going off like a loose cannon. Before you have a go at me just stop and think for a minute if he had been wrong and named someone perfectly innocent?
I can see where you are coming from re riding rough shot over the judiciary but how many laws are passed by Parliament and are changed by the judiciary, it’s called case law which im happy with. Im also happy with it going the other way on this occasion.
So in a nutshell the arsehole’s paid the complainants off ?? I wonder why.
I can see where you are coming from re riding rough shot over the judiciary but how many laws are passed by Parliament and are changed by the judiciary, it’s called case law which im happy with. Im also happy with it going the other way on this
occasion.
None. Case law can't contradict statute.
I didn’t say contradict I said change, as in adapt. Which as I said I’m happy with as it generally works well.None. Case law can't contradict statute.
I didn’t say contradict I said change, as in adapt. Which as I said I’m happy with as it generally works well.
Sure, but they're not changing anything Parliament does, the separation of powers is maintained. They are merely interpreting the legislation. That's totally their job and only their job. It's not at all the same as Hain bypassing the judicial system like today.