Wtf. Where are you coming from. I didn’t say it was the same, I said I’m happy that Hain has used his privilege (can that be classed as common law) to the disadvantage of a fucking wanker.
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
Wtf. Where are you coming from. I didn’t say it was the same, I said I’m happy that Hain has used his privilege (can that be classed as common law) to the disadvantage of a fucking wanker.
It's not about Green. Green and his character are irrelevant. Hain has interfered with the judicial process.
Sorry mate, I must have misread the post heading.It's not about Green. Green and his character are irrelevant. Hain has interfered with the judicial process.
Glad we’ve sorted out that we’re talking about different topics. Goodnight.
I didn’t say contradict I said change, as in adapt. Which as I said I’m happy with as it generally works well.
Errr....well all of them.
But that's sort of their job.
Green didn't use anything. The judge puts injunctions in place.
And Parliamentary privilege exists only as long as it is not abused. This was an abuse.
Did the judge just wake up one morning and decide; I think I'll put a few injunctions in place? I think not. Or much more likely did Green make an application at great expense to take out an injunction to stop people telling the truth (or possibly lies - let the courts decide). Green used his position and money to legally (hmmm) prevent him from being accused of a crime our crimes.
The thread is titled Philip Green. It is very much about Philip Green and his actions. If it was titled Peter Hain abuses parliamentary privilidge you'd have a point.It's not about Green. Green and his character are irrelevant. Hain has interfered with the judicial process.
It is all about Philip Green and his character.
Na, he’s a cnut who deserves to be outed, it’s not like it’s his first transgression is it?Me too. This is outrageous bollocks.
Parliamentary privilege exists so that the business of Parliament can go on unimpeded by the justice system. It is one of the key protections that we have to separate the legislature and the judicial and was extremely hard won in 1689 to ensure freedom of speech was protected in debate. It is not there to produce idle gossip for the red top rags of the world and social media to craw over.
That's how this works. The court doesn't get to interfere in the operation of Parliament and Parliament doesn't get to interfere with the operation of the courts. When that breaks down, it has to be for a spectacularly good reason. Having a bit of a laugh at some rich cretin is not that reason.
Phillip Green deserves the right to a fair trial. I don't know or care if he's guilty, he deserves that right either way and the courts will do their job to decide. Superinjunctions are put in place because the court fears that that will not be possible, and they have a legal basis on which to present this upon. It's not some old boys homoerotic quid pro quo mates helping each other nonsense. It serves a real purpose.
The rule of law in this country feels like it's under attack to some degree at the moment or perhaps I'm just noticing it more recently. I'm starting to understand all of those great figures who talk about how our rights need constant vigilance to be protected. It's seemingly never ending.
Did the judge just wake up one morning and decide; I think I'll put a few injunctions in place? I think not. Or much more likely did Green make an application at great expense to take out an injunction to stop people telling the truth (or possibly lies - let the courts decide). Green used his position and money to legally (hmmm) prevent him from being accused of a crime our crimes.
Well by that reckoning, judges are pointless and don't make any decisions.
Anybody can apply for anything they want. Applying for something is irrelevant.
The point, is that a judge decided that in the eyes of the law this would prejudice the case. Probably with extremely good reason.
Na, he’s a cnut who deserves to be outed, it’s not like it’s his first transgression is it?
He deserves a fair trial. The law doesn't only serve people who aren't cunts.
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 31,290
Was always a ****, now we know he is dirty old man perv type of **** also