1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Oh Phillip Green

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by SPG, Oct 25, 2018.

  1. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 18,042

    Excellent, a person who steals hundreds of millions out of the purses and wallets of his employees will he's a non-dom that hide's his businesses interests behind his wife, is not deserving of the protection of this country.

    He attempted to lead astray MP's at his hearing after BHS exploded, trust in the man is frankly minimal, so if he say's that something didn't happen, it's likely to be true... just like the "family values men" meme in the US or Catholic priesthood in general... sometimes there's no trust left to give these people, you just know.

    It's sad for the idea of innocence prior to guilt, but it's these so-called "principled" people that lack all moral compass, that undermine it, not the observers that have so little individual power in comparison. Hopefully his businesses fall.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2018
  2. VincentHanna

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2013

    Posts: 17,435

    Hopefully they don't, but hopefully he sells them to somebody else.

    Wouldn't want 1000's of people to lose their jobs.
     
  3. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 18,042

    Ahh but then the best capitalist's out there would say that is opportunity, not cause for lamentation.

    Too bad we don't live in any mildly ideal capitalism though, his businesses like BHS will suffer the same fate as everything else on the high-street, only slightly faster now until the man divests his image from his businesses.

    I see he's already doing the authoritarian story change from absolute denial to "banter", laughable.
     
  4. Freakbro

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 29, 2010

    Posts: 14,443

    Location: Lincs

    Yea...not sure why you would need people to sign an NDA for "banter"..
     
  5. Pudney

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2005

    Posts: 5,172

    Location: Essex

    In fairness (and who doesn't like to be fair), the decision to remove a knighthood doesn't come from Number 10, or any politician. The PM can ask the Forfeiture Committee (made up of senior civil servants only) who make the decision and pass to the PM to forward on to the Queen. But the actual decision making process is outside the control of politicians.
     
  6. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2006

    Posts: 9,254

    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 possibly 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.
     
  7. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,219

    Spend time with her majesty jail service, never mind monaco.
     
  8. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 11,844

    There is banter where everyone is in on it, it happens in most offices and yes it does get offensive (but also quite funny).

    But then there is bullying disguised as "banter".
     
  9. Freakbro

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 29, 2010

    Posts: 14,443

    Location: Lincs

    Absolutely and if you're having to pay people off and get them to sign NDAs it's not unreasonable to assume which of those it is
     
  10. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,006

    Maybe he's just incredibly generous and likes to reward people with huge sums of money for having a joke with him. And because he's also very modest they have to sign an agreement not to talk about it. Simples.
     
  11. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,850

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    Whilst I think Philip Greene is a horrible human being and deserves [almost] anything he gets, being named like that does fly in the face of our judicial system and as such I think it wrong.

    One also really has to question what Lord Hains motives, who made the announcement, were, given that he is an adviser for the Telegraph, who wanted to publish exclusive stories about this, and can now do so because he's been named.. I don't suppose he sits as an adviser to the Telegraph group for free. Whilst he categorically denies this had anything to do with his motives it's hard to take anything like that at face value.
     
  12. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,219

    Its been said before... the only people who can get these injunctions are the very wealthy that in itself is a mockery of the system. The privilege is there for multiple reasons this being just one of them.

    It was also the right thing to do, screw Green he has robbed people of hard earned money, pretty much he kicked in the bank doors got caught and only had to pay 3/4 of what he stole as he knows the bank manager.

    I hope people boycott his group/ sorry his wifes (lets avoid all responsibility) , someone will come along and buy it off him for £2 and run it properly.
     
  13. Rifte

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 17, 2010

    Posts: 2,700

    Location: Somewhere in Asia

    Exactly.

    My gut says that he did it, he simply isn't a nice bloke but to smear him before a trial? Ridiculous. Let him have his day in court.

    If guilty then let it hit the front pages.

    If people want to petition the removal of his knighthood do it on the basis of the BHS mess. Not this...
    Not yet anyway.
     
  14. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 18,042

    Well if the system that government/s helped perpetuate is so immorally lopsided in favour of untouchable billionaire non-dom *****, then we haven't really got much to go on have we. We occasionally need the sacrificial lamb to set it right, regardless of any immediate damage.
     
  15. Rifte

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 17, 2010

    Posts: 2,700

    Location: Somewhere in Asia

    Money opens certain doors....one of the oldest tales in time.

    All he was doing was trying to protect himself from what is ultimately wrong in my view. Trial by the media and the population before a court gets to decide. Actually his fame and money is a disadvantage here. If I get accused of being inappropriate to some of my employees...guess what? Most of the world will not care because I am Joe average. No newspaper will front page it.

    If he is guilty no amount of money is going to protect him or his reputation.

    Like I said the guy looks like a greasy creep and
    I think he did it. However his fate or his reputation shouldn't be subjected to what my gut says.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2018
  16. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,743

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    That's something else that doesn't sit right with me. There is clearly a strong element of "we can't get him for his financial dealings, so we'll get him for this because of those". It's a repeated theme, even in this short thread.

    If he's innocent no amount of money is going to protect him or his reputation. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant to trial by media/society, which is a very large part of why it's wrong.

    Innocent of sexual harassment, I mean. He's guilty of financial corruption, that's for sure.
     
  17. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 18,042

    The only people still trying to protect the rule of law are those that need it, the rest of society is collapsing and seeing it for what it hasn't been allowed to investigate.

    Those small indiscretions to save the state or establishment, means it's a dead and always has been. Even now documents disappear from government lockers because it would harm a minister or some historical mistake that destroy's the image of Britain.

    That is simply the true fact of this, sometimes the only option is the court of public opinion. The system is entirely broken because it gives even the slightest concession based on who/what an individual is/has.

    I guess it would be fundamentally impossible to have a system be 100% rational, it'd be really nice if certain people could conduct themselves without theft and "banter".
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2018
  18. Rifte

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 17, 2010

    Posts: 2,700

    Location: Somewhere in Asia

    This should never be an option.

    Unfortunately the public are generally stupid. Trump and Brexit are great examples, and they are easily influenced.

    Imagine if you were in his shoes and you knew that you were 100% innocent, but because allegations had been smeared on you in a #metoo environment you had already been hung, drawn and quartered.

    Still comfortable at being a sacrificial lamb in front of the public, and having your trial in the media and the broadsheets?

    Its simply not right. The basic assumption of innocence until proven otherwise has to remain, and the public are making assumptions (myself included) on limited data.

    As I mentioned earlier Philip Green's wealth and fame does not give him ANY concession at all with this. If he is guilty, what is left of his reputation after the BHS scandal is finished.

    The ability to try and gag the media by throwing money about? Sure Joe Public does not have the ability to do that, but he probably would not need to either because as I mentioned allegations of Joe Public molesting women does not sell newspapers.

    Green was only trying to buy a basic right that anyone else pretty much gets from being a nobody.
     
  19. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2006

    Posts: 9,254

    I wouldn't have paid out vast sums of money to buy off multiple people.
    I wouldn't have ordered the removal of a Feminist book display in a store making money off young women.
     
  20. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,743

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    Why would you have paid out vastly more money to be judged guilty of something you weren't guilty of? Some sort of self-harming?

    I would order the removal of all displays promoting irrational prejudice and discrimination, even if they were profitable. As a matter of principle.