Philip Green

[BigJoe#1]

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.

I think it's universally accepted that money can buy you anything, even people's silence.

If he committed those criminal offences he should NOT have the right, by way of his immense wealth to buy people's silence. It is for the Courts to decide his guilt or innocence, not for a panel of judges to influencee the likelihood of him facing the charges.

 

[Henkeman]

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 is all about Philip Green and his character.

I realise nuanced points appear to be beyond many on here, but I'd have thought it fairly obvious and apparent that the point being made was the feeling of concern about Peter Hain's actions are not about what Philip Green might or might not be.

Didn't think it needed spelling out, but ok.

 

[Blue Til Death]

Well it's on the BBC's website, accused of sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45981436

PEG gets away with that regularly and the BBC love him...!

 

[dickie davies]

This thread is about Phillip Green and yet people keep mentioning Giggs, what's he done ?

Shagged his sister in law

As for giggsy!!!

 

[Damocles]

I think it's universally accepted that money can buy you anything, even people's silence.

If he committed those criminal offences he should NOT have the right, by way of his immense wealth to buy people's silence. It is for the Courts to decide his guilt or innocence, not for a panel of judges to influencee the likelihood of him facing the charges.

But his wealth has nothing to do with it.

His team asked the judge to consider the idea that his case wouldn't be fair, the judge did and ruled that he wouldn't get a fair trial.

You can't buy off judges. That's a bit mad as an idea.

 

[Henkeman]

You can't buy off judges. That's a bit mad as an idea.

It is of course, precisely why judges are paid so much. For some reason a few don't get that rationale.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

It is of course, precisely why judges are paid so much. For some reason a few don't get that rationale.

And of course why in cases like this judges don’t sit alone.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Then it was me who misunderstood!

No, I wasn't advocating any change or restriction to it, I don't think that's a good idea at all. It relies on MPs to be responsible about its use. I'm not sure Hain is being so here, that's all. A bit of a dodgy precedent really.

And he's not an MP any more!

I don't think I've seen Hain's reasoning of why it was important to name him.

 

[Damocles]

It is of course, precisely why judges are paid so much. For some reason a few don't get that rationale.

But we should lower MPs salaries though!

Incredible when you think about it.

 

[happy daze]

Well there have been calls for Green to be stripped of his knighthood by some in parliament despite the fact he hasn't been convicted of anything,somehow though they allow archer a convicted criminal to remain in the lords,double standards?