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

Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
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. . . .
I would have thought that the three Appeal Court Judges would have made their judgement based entirely on their interpretation of the law, not the public interest?

Perhaps the judgement is in the public domain, most likely not.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Jul 2011
Posts
4,418
Location
Cambridgeshire
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?

I absolutely get your point. My preference in all of this would be for injunctions to be unavailable for this kind of reporting, that way the issue of privilige being used doesn't come up at all.

I will also say most of the attention i've seen around this case hasn't focussed on the allegations but the fact that a super injunction has been sought. That's just my exposure though.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
. . . [The Appeal Court Judges have] gone as far as reasonably possible, no?
Perhaps. However, I don't feel that their ruling really serves to protect the public from predatory behaviour by a multimillionaire. As they say:
The public, including prospective employees of the claimants, have the right to know not just about the alleged misconduct but also the way in which senior management has (in his words) swept aside the complaints of employees.
The basis on which they ruled was that the Torygraph had illegally obtained details of the employee's complaints about "an unnamed senior executive" - in breach of NDAs. They went on to say that:
We appreciate that any delay in the publication of matters of public interest is undesirable. That can be met to some extent, in the present case, by ordering a speedy trial.
As if that is likely to happen in the legal world where the killing of Thomas Becket in December 1170 has recently been identified as probably being a "mistake"!

Would the Torygraph have been "permitted" by the Court of Appeal to publish details of MPs expenses claims and thus to harm their reputations? Publish and be damned - or not.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
22,349
All very well using parliamentary privilege, but still a hypocrisy here with the house of Lord, Liberal Peer Rennard , Damien 'jinx' Green, the speaker,
and no sign of any better code of conduct. .. stiil do as I say, not as I do.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,589
'Progressive' outlets and those who support them continue to show how inconsistent they are.....

recently it was Google's turn to show how consistent they are (or not) when it comes to consistently dealing with sexual misconduct and (alleged) sexism...

Google gave Andy Rubin, the creator of Android mobile software, a hero’s farewell when he left the company in October 2014.

“I want to wish Andy all the best with what’s next,” Larry Page, Google’s chief executive then, said in a public statement. “With Android he created something truly remarkable — with a billion-plus happy users.”

What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode. Google investigated and concluded her claim was credible, said the people, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing confidentiality agreements. Mr. Rubin was notified, they said, and Mr. Page asked for his resignation.

Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms. The last payment is scheduled for next month.

Mr. Rubin was one of three executives that Google protected over the past decade after they were accused of sexual misconduct. In two instances, it ousted senior executives, but softened the blow by paying them millions of dollars as they departed, even though it had no legal obligation to do so. In a third, the executive remained in a highly compensated post at the company. Each time Google stayed silent about the accusations against the men.

The same Google that rather quickly fired a more lowly coder for suggesting that men and women, on average, may have some differences in interests and personalities and that this might account for at least some of the disparity in the sex ratios for those working in tech industries....

Google's current CEO had this to say about the firing of Damore...

Pichai said. “It’s important for the women at Google, and all the people at Google, that we want to make an inclusive environment.”

Maybe Rubin knew too much about other things and the payment was hush money tied to an NDA?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
22,349
I'm sorry but did I miss Philip Green been charged and found guilty? Or does that not matter anymore?
yes the BBC, had him drawn and quartered on R4 Today this morning, they have an interesting strategy where they hire in external executioners
(deniability) they had
Damaged Goods: The Inside Story of Sir Philip Green, the Collapse of BHS and the Death of the High Street by Sunday Times journalist Oliver Shah
on, initially, to give a salacious character assasination, and publicize his book.


edit OK the BBC later redressed this a bit with the Jonathen Evens interview, who did suggest HP disclosure may have been ill advised without Lord X knowing the facts.
 
Last edited:
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
I'm sorry but did I miss Mr. X been (sic) charged and found guilty? Or does that not matter anymore?
Your apology is accepted.

I'm quite sure that the lawyers acting on behalf of the charming, caring, modest, invariably polite and soon to be canonized "senior executive" of an unnamed organisation got the various accusers to sign NDAs entirely voluntarily, without accepting any of their claims and with zero compensation.
 
Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2003
Posts
1,977
Location
cyberspace
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?

I'm sorry but did I miss Philip Green been charged and found guilty? Or does that not matter anymore?

No mate. He's not even been charged with anything. But on twitter if someone says you did something you are guilty.

There are even talking about boycotting his shops now.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Posts
21,922
Location
Rollergirl
No mate. He's not even been charged with anything. But on twitter if someone says you did something you are guilty.

There are even talking about boycotting his shops now.

This is a really good point actually, this individual will incur serious financial loss as a result of the MPs actions. Let's not forget that at this moment in time, he has denied all allegations made against him.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Jul 2011
Posts
4,418
Location
Cambridgeshire
I'm sorry but did I miss Philip Green been charged and found guilty? Or does that not matter anymore?

Well the Telegraph piece was going to highlight alleged sexual misconduct, racial abuse, and bullying which resulted in out of court settlements backed up by non-disclosure agreements. I'm not sure if they're alleging criminal misconduct, but then again nobody in here is asking for him to go to prison, however I think there's enough information for a debate and speculation as to what's going on as well as a debate around the use of NDA's, the use of super injunctions, and the use of parliamentary privilege, which is what's happening in this thread.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
This is a really good point actually, this individual will incur serious financial loss as a result of the MPs actions. Let's not forget that at this moment in time, he has denied all allegations made against him.
. . . at some point in time his lawyers appear to have paid five people to sign NDAs rather than present his defence to an Industrial Tribunal - just as an act of generosity to a bunch of fantasists.

I believe that Agent Orange denies Stormy Daniels' quite outrageous claims but doesn't want to upset her by suing for defamation?
 
Suspended
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
29,030
This is a really good point actually, this individual will incur serious financial loss as a result of the MPs actions. Let's not forget that at this moment in time, he has denied all allegations made against him.

It's Philip Green....a billionare who took half a billion quid out of RBS in 15 years and sold it for £1....His actions gutted the pension fund and only paid it back when they threatened to strip his precious knighthood.

He's a scumbag.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
It's Philip Green....a billionare who took half a billion quid out of RBS in 15 years and sold it for £1....His actions gutted the pension fund and only paid it back when they threatened to strip his precious knighthood.

He's a scumbag.
BHS?

But yes, Philip Green doesn't appear to be someone who any decent person would really want to have move in next door and marry your daughter ;)
 
Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2003
Posts
1,977
Location
cyberspace
It's Philip Green....a billionare who took half a billion quid out of RBS in 15 years and sold it for £1....His actions gutted the pension fund and only paid it back when they threatened to strip his precious knighthood.

He's a scumbag.

He is still has the right to a fair trail like everyone else in this country. Remember "innocent until proven guilty"
 
Suspended
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
29,030
He is still has the right to a fair trail like everyone else in this country. Remember "innocent until proven guilty"

Yes he does, but I was responding to the poster who said he will incur "serious financial loss"

Does it really matter if an asset stripping billionaire suffers some financial loss? 11,000 people lost their jobs when BHS collapsed....what about their financial loss?
 
Back
Top Bottom