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

However, do feel free to express your outrage about Ronaldo rather than attempting to defend Philip Green
Click to expand...
There is as bigger world than Mr Green, where there a formal allegations/facts in the public domain as opposed to UK jornalist microcosym/love-in/conjecture,
... although the journalists with the taste for blood are now savaging Lord X since he, apparently, has connections with the legal firm working for the Telegraph, live and die by the sword.


It will be interesting to see if May is held responsible for the HP revelation, she was somewhat an Agent Provocateur ?
 
jpaul said:
There is a bigger world than Mr Green, where there are formal allegations/facts in the public domain . . .
Click to expand...
You seem to be overlooking that Philip Green has only denied "unlawful sexual or racist behaviour"; he hasn't mentioned the allegations of sexism and harassment or the suggestion that people were paid as much as £1,000,000 to silence abuse claims (LINK) rather than having them refuted in a court or an Employment Tribunal.

So that's not too bad then according to you?
 
Tattooed said:
Yes the metoo crap has gone to far. but how will we stop it? The Daily Mail torch bearers and social media have given these people to much power.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with #metoo if it's used correctly, and not to merely get attention on yourself for an unrelated matter

What a weird mindset to have. I hope none of your direct family ever get sexually assaulted in the workplace
 
And now it transpires that Lord Hain has a financial relationship with the Telegraph's lawyers.

How convenient that this utter pillar of the community has been able to intervene without recourse personally, and at the same time solve an awkward and costly problem for a client of a financial acquaintence.

Normally I'd be outraged, but obviously the accused is an unsavoury character and I once bought a pair of jeans from Topshop that ran in the wash, so all's well that ends well.
 
String said:
And now it transpires that Lord Hain has a financial relationship with the Telegraph's lawyers.

How convenient that . . . [Peter Hain has solved] an awkward and costly problem for a client of a financial acquaintance. . . .
Click to expand...
The lawyers in question are Gordon Dadds (LINK). Peter Hain has since June 2016 been their Global and Government Adviser and I would agree that it is "odd" that he didn't read the Appeal Court judgement.

However, I am not quite sure what basis you have for saying that he solved an awkward and costly problem for the Torygraph; so far as I am aware, they are still unable to publish details of the allegations against Philip Green but perhaps you buy the paper and know different?

Peter Hain said:
I always comply fully with my House of Lords obligations as I did on this occasion. Green's "complaint" is a malevolent diversion. I stand resolutely by what I've said and neither retract nor apologise for standing up for human rights against, power, privilege and wealth.
Click to expand...
He forgot to mention tax dodging . . .
 
stockhausen said:
However, I am not quite sure what basis you have for saying that he solved an awkward and costly problem for the Torygraph; so far as I am aware, they are still unable to publish details of the allegations against Philip Green but perhaps you buy the paper and know different?
Click to expand...

The allegations have been reported countless times by countless sources. It's the naming of the person involved that was not reported... Until Hain intervened.
 
String said:
The allegations have been reported countless times by countless sources. It's the naming of the person involved that was not reported... Until Hain intervened.
Click to expand...
Would you be able to point me to the detailed allegations that "have been reported countless times by countless sources"?
The Torygraph would be a good starting point.

The Torygraph on October 24th said:
[Terence Etherton's] intervention makes it illegal to reveal the businessman’s identity or to identify the companies, as well as what he is accused of doing or how much he paid his alleged victims. (LINK).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Lord Hain interview - trying to explain his behaviour 8" in, make you own mind up

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bpqdty/newsnight-25102018

also comments in this article

Finally, the settlements contained provisions that allowed the complainants to make “authorised disclosures” to regulatory and statutory bodies. In other words, if a crime or regulatory offence had been committed, the NDAs did not prevent the complainants from reporting to the police or other authority.
...
When interviewed by Evan Davies on Newsnight last night, Lord Hain was asked about some of these issues. What about the wishes of the complainants who supported the injunction? What about the fact that this was an interim injunction? Why the haste? To describe Lord Hain’s answers as evasive would be charitable. He didn’t even attempt to address the questions, either because he knows there is no sensible answer, or because he hadn’t taken the time to actually acquaint himself with the basic facts before forming his view.
Click to expand...

he has no answers /independant thoughts on the issue.
... edit - a self righteous diatribe, supercilious grin and all.
 
Last edited:
stockhausen said:
Would you be able to point me to the detailed allegations that "have been reported countless times by countless sources"?
The Torygraph would be a good starting point.
Click to expand...

Is the use of italics, bold, underline, really necessary... it comes across as very condescending.

Also, given the details that have emerged and your obvious interest in the subject, I feel you are being more than a little obtuse here.



FvvOMcS.png


kYIQL6V.png
 
Philip Green has said there had only been "some banter" which had "never been offensive"; he said he was happy to apologise if anything caused offence.

If it had "never been offensive", how on Earth could he have "caused offence"? Furthermore, why was he willing to pay vast sums of money to people who hadn't been "offended" and require them to sign NDAs?

For the sake of their (junior) employees I am not in favour of people boycotting Topshop or other Arcadia outlets. However, I am all in favour of Philip Green being stripped of his "honour" and ideally persuaded to "spend more time with his family" in Monaco.
 
stockhausen said:
Philip Green has said there had only been "some banter" which had "never been offensive"; he said he was happy to apologise if anything caused offence.

If it had "never been offensive", how on Earth could he have "caused offence"?
Click to expand...

Because there isn't necessarily any connection between the two, obviously.

Random example...someone I know calls everyone "my lover". Is it offensive? No. They say it as a meaningless noise. It's just habit. They probably either don't notice or consider it polite. Could someone be offended? Of course. Anyone can be offended about anything. What matters is power and the will to use it, which is based on the group identity politics hierarchy.

Furthermore, why was he willing to pay vast sums of money to people who hadn't been "offended" and require them to sign NDAs?
Click to expand...

Because that was cheaper for him than not doing so. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant when guilt is presumed.

For the sake of their (junior) employees I am not in favour of people boycotting Topshop or other Arcadia outlets. However, I am all in favour of Philip Green being stripped of his "honour" and ideally persuaded to "spend more time with his family" in Monaco.
Click to expand...

A perfect example of my point - you presume him guilty and want him punished. If you want to understand why someone who was innocent would pay hush money, just look in the mirror for an example.

Maybe he's guilty of something. Maybe not. There's no evidence available and it's irrelevant anyway. Nobody with enough power cares about innocence or guilt, so it doesn't matter.
 
Angilion said:
. . . you presume him guilty and want him punished. . . .
Click to expand...
And it appears that you choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. His arrogant sense of entitlement based on his treatment of BHS staff can have no bearing on an assessment of his attitude to staff elsewhere; the suggestion that he was responsible of ordering the removal of a feminist book display in Topshop cannot possibly give any indication of his attitude to feminism; serially submitting to blackmail by his employees is normal behaviour for an innocent billionaire.

Incidentally, I would accept punishment under the legal system, which is unsurprisingly biased in favour of the wealthy. In the meantime, I don't think it appropriate that he should be accorded any honour at all by the Queen.

Angilion said:
. . .
Nobody with enough power cares about innocence or guilt, so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter to you; it may matter to others who believe in the concept of justice and are prepared to fight for it.
 
the NDA's didn't bypass the law ?
...
Finally, the settlements contained provisions that allowed the complainants to make “authorised disclosures” to regulatory and statutory bodies. In other words, if a crime or regulatory offence had been committed, the NDAs did not prevent the complainants from reporting to the police or other authority.
Click to expand...
 
jpaul said:
The Lord Hain interview - trying to explain his behaviour 8" in, make you own mind up

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bpqdty/newsnight-25102018

also comments in this article



he has no answers /independant thoughts on the issue.
... edit - a self righteous diatribe, supercilious grin and all.
Click to expand...

Hain has always been trouble. Trouble in South Africa, trouble over here, in my opinion. There are many high ranking British judiciary who are extremely uncomfortable with how he used Parliamentary Privilege to name green. I dislike both of them but it would give me smile should Green be able to dig some dirt on Hain at some point ;) I do not believe his use of the PP was just or necessary given the flimsy accusations pointed at Green that have emerged so far. He should have turned his attention to changing the law on "gagging payments" instead.
 
stockhausen said:
And it appears that you choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. [..]
Click to expand...

Unlike you, everyone else in the regressive left and far too many people in general, I don't think it's a good idea to presume people guilty solely because of their sex, "race" or any other trivial biological characteristic else some people sadly consider to be of paramount importance.

In fact, I disagree with presumption of guilt in general and as a matter of principle. I think that it's wrong to judge people guilty without at least compelling evidence.

Out of curiousity, how did you manage to twist "Maybe he's guilty of something. Maybe not." into "give him the benefit of the doubt" in your mind? Or did you just ignore it because you couldn't fit it into your narrative?

stockhausen said:
[..] It doesn't matter to you; it may matter to others who believe in the concept of justice and are prepared to fight for it.
Click to expand...

Guilt or innocence doesn't matter to you and all the other people who presume guilt based on sex, "race" or whatever and explicitly and passionately demand that guilt be presumed and evidence be considered irrelevant. It does matter to others (like myself) who believe that "justice" doesn't mean "presumption of guilt based on sex, "race" or whatever and a kangaroo court passing summary judgement on that basis". However, people like you have lots of power and people like me don't so the matter of guilt or innocence is becoming increasing less important and only remains of any importance because of the inertia of checks and balances built into the legal system and not yet completely removed by the regressive left.
 
So about the google 'walkout', first thought was, I am sure their management are secretly content by this behaviour, as it will allow google to adopt the moral highground/signalling, as an organization theyy are prepared to do their washing.

Neither the golden handshake to the employee who worked on android pioneering (was it stock?), has precluded any independant criminal proceedings,
nor, does their recommendation for internal arbitration (like the Green NDA's).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom