#MeToo - is it just different for men and women?

Chris Wilson · 25 Oct 2018 at 15:29

Is this revelation called "Top Shopping"?

FortuitousFluke · 25 Oct 2018 at 15:32

String said:
Yea, some MP just popped a cap in Philip Greens character. The burden of proof really is redundant now.

I could be wrong here but wasn't his legal justification for the injunction that he shouldn't be exposed as he'd reached financial settlements with the people involved? If so he pretty much provided the proof himself.

Jokester · 25 Oct 2018 at 15:36

FortuitousFluke said:
Oh come on! They could have at least kept it secret for a day or two so we could have a good guess at who it was.

Yeah, but disappointed it’s him because it doesn’t surprise me at all. Would have been a bit more juicy if it was someone with a squeaky clean image.

Dirk Diggler · 25 Oct 2018 at 15:39

FortuitousFluke said:
I could be wrong here but wasn't his legal justification for the injunction that he shouldn't be exposed as he'd reached financial settlements with the people involved? If so he pretty much provided the proof himself.

There's a court injunction, only a court should lift it after hearing evidence as to why it should be lifted.

aardvark · 25 Oct 2018 at 15:42

aww thats disappointing, i thought it would at least be a surprise.

FortuitousFluke · 25 Oct 2018 at 15:57

String said:
There's a court injunction, only a court should lift it after hearing evidence as to why it should be lifted.

There's no legal argument here, parliamentary privilege means there's no case to answer. You could argue from a moral standpoint that parliamentary privilege should not be used to circumvent an injunction, but then arguing on moral grounds on behalf of a man who just used a super injunction to try and squash rumours of personal and sexual misconduct is a bit dubious.

Dirk Diggler · 25 Oct 2018 at 16:08

FortuitousFluke said:
There's no legal argument here

Oh, ok then.

dowie · 25 Oct 2018 at 16:18

Jokester said:
Yeah, but disappointed it’s him because it doesn’t surprise me at all. Would have been a bit more juicy if it was someone with a squeaky clean image.

indeed, would be much juicier if it wasn't someone whose reputation is already in the gutter

though one possible way of making it more interesting is his wife - he avoided tax on a massive dividend as his wife is a resident of Monaco and pays no tax, likewise in the BHS hearing technically his wife owns all the assets and so he was able to deflect various questions by pointing out that he didn't own the company etc... he'd best hope their marriage is rock solid as she's the one legally in possession of everything

stockhausen · 25 Oct 2018 at 16:30

On 20 October 2016, the House of Commons approved a motion to ask for the Honours Forfeiture Committee to recommend Green's knighthood be "cancelled and annulled". 100 MPs voted in favour of the motion. The vote was not binding on the government.

I expect that the other 500+ MPs were out shopping.

Dirk Diggler · 25 Oct 2018 at 17:03

Quote from the BBC

So the judiciary is unlikely to be pleased.
The injunction in this case was a court order granted by three of the most senior judges in the country at the Court of Appeal.
It was the rule of law in action. They had before them many facts and evidence to consider and came to a ruling that was pretty emphatic.

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

It really is concerning the way the law is treated as a complete irrelevance when individuals feel that they know better and just proceed accordingly.

dowie · 25 Oct 2018 at 17:15

String said:
It really is concerning the way the law is treated as a complete irrelevance when individuals feel that they know better and just proceed accordingly.

Not the first time this has happened either, parliamentary privilege has been used for this sort of thing in the past too and it does seem to trigger judges - Ryan Giggs was outed in this way.

Dis86 · 25 Oct 2018 at 17:51

Why should Dave who is accused of raping Sally whilst on a night out be named yet Sir xxx or Millionaire yyy not be?

dowie · 25 Oct 2018 at 17:54

Dis86 said:
Why should Dave who is accused of raping Sally whilst on a night out be named yet Sir xxx or Millionaire yyy not be?

cos they can afford the legal fees

(of course being a suspect in a criminal case is a bit different regardless)

FortuitousFluke · 25 Oct 2018 at 18:13

String said:
Quote from the BBC

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

It really is concerning the way the law is treated as a complete irrelevance when individuals feel that they know better and just proceed accordingly.

Or conversely that the law can be manipulated in the first place to allow the rich and powerful to engage in whatever behaviour they like without any reputational risk whatsoever.

Dirk Diggler · 25 Oct 2018 at 18:17

FortuitousFluke said:
Or conversely that the law can be manipulated in the first place to allow the rich and powerful to engage in whatever behaviour they like without any reputational risk whatsoever.

The law is the law, we shouldn't just decide which laws we agree with and those that we don't. That's probably the single negative aspect of #meToo in my opinion... Trial by [social] media. Just point the finger and it's final.

Dirk Diggler · 25 Oct 2018 at 18:31

Moses said:
And what’s Parliamentary Priviledge?

It exists to protect MPs, it doesn't exist for media editors to circumvent the law.

Dis86 · 25 Oct 2018 at 18:31

Moses said:
If he'd be charged it'd be different, tbf.

dowie said:
cos they can afford the legal fees

(of course being a suspect in a criminal case is a bit different regardless)

I'm talking about before it even gets to court. But yes, fully aware the reason is money or power. We shouldn't have a 2 tier justice system.

stockhausen · 25 Oct 2018 at 19:02

FortuitousFluke said:
Or conversely that the law can be manipulated in the first place to allow the rich and powerful good friends of Politicians to engage in whatever behaviour they like without any reputational risk whatsoever.

Fixed that for you

FortuitousFluke · 25 Oct 2018 at 19:38

String said:
It exists to protect MPs, it doesn't exist for media editors to circumvent the law.

This has nothing to do with the media. There was an interview with the telegraph on 5live where they sounded understandably ****** that a Lord had broken a story they had put 8 months of investigative reporting into.

At the end of the day from everything i can see this is clearly in the public interest.

Dirk Diggler · 25 Oct 2018 at 19:42

FortuitousFluke said:
At the end of the day from everything i can see this is clearly in the public interest

I understand your point, and it's getting a bit circular but I just want to be clear on what my gripe with this is. It's not about what I deem to be in the public interest, nor you, not the MP's. Three judges had all the evidence in front of them, and they made a judgement regarding the public interest. If that's just being ignored due to the usual Twitter lynch mobs, then what's the point in having the legal system?

#MeToo - is it just different for men and women?

Capodecina

Capodecina