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

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom