Philip Green and my part in his downfall
Judging by the reaction to Peter Hain’s outing of Philip Green as an alleged sex pest, law matters not a jot – it’s a matter of like or dislike. People who view Green as a bastard deserving of opprobrium will think it good the sitting Lord used parliamentary privilege to repeat the claim the Top Shop boss was using NDAs and big money pay-offs to quieten several members of staff at his Arcadia Group from going public with claims of sexual harassment or bullying.
If you like Green or are indifferent to him, you might be more circumspect, trusting the judges who approved requests for an injunction banning journalists from naming the tycoon or revealing details of those aforesaid allegations more prudent than Hain. You might wonder if being super-rich can be a double-edged sword: sure, you can afford the best legal teams but in the court of public opinion people delight in the worst and are entertained by downfall.
Sky News doorstepped Green in a hot and sunny Arizona. “He’s now miles from parliament,” says the reporter, offering viewers a mix of shock and snark that a billionaire would chose to spend the week at an exclusive resort rather than at a B & B in Bridlington. It’s alright for some, eh.
And what of the alleged offences? An ‘insider’ alleges in the Guardian that Sir Philip gave women lingering hugs, asked if they were “naughty girls”, wondered if they “needed their bottoms slapped”, said a woman “must be a lesbian because no man would marry her”, responded to one woman who asked Green to use her name rather than “sweetheart” by telling her to “shut the f*** up”, and asked an Asian woman if she had been “eating too many samosas”. The Times says it’s been reported that “several” claims reached a settlement of at least £1,000,000. “It is not known if these cases were among the five subject to the interim injunction that kept the billionaire’s identity secret until he was named in parliament by Lord Hain on Thursday,” says the paper. “It is thought a number of the complainants signed non-disclosure agreements.”
Facts are thin on the ground. There are lots of claims and allegations. Green says he’s done nothing wrong, issuing a statement: “I am not commenting on anything that has happened in court or was said in parliament. To the extent that it is suggested that I have been guilty of unlawful or improper sexual or racist behaviour, I categorically and wholly deny these allegations… Arcadia and I take accusations and grievances from employees very seriously and in the event that one is raised, it is thoroughly investigated. These settlements are confidential so I cannot comment further on them.”
We can wait. And the lawyers can run a tab. Green plans to issue a formal complaint to the House of Lords. “As many people have said,” says Green, “Lord Hain’s blatant disregard of a judgement made by three senior judges is outrageous.” The Times adds more layers of intrigue: “The Labour peer failed to mention that he had worked for Gordon Dadds, the law firm employed by The Daily Telegraph to fight the case. Adding:
The former Tory attorney-general Dominic Grieve said that he was alarmed by the link. “I would make a formal complaint if I were a member of the House of Lords,” he said, adding: “That there is now a suggestion that it might have been in the solicitors’ firm’s interest to do it [reveal the name] rather than a disinterested decision by him [Lord Hain], even if one which I think is completely wrong, makes me even more alarmed.”
Says Green:
“When Lord Hain made allegations about me in the House of Lords … he failed to disclose that he has a financial relationship with the law firm, Gordon Dadds, who represent the Telegraph.
“I have been advised that his actions are likely to have been a breach of the House of Lords Code of Conduct. As many people have said Lord Hain’s blatant disregard of a judgment made by three senior judges is outrageous.
“If he hadn’t read the judgment, on what basis was he apparently talking about it. If he had, Gordon Dadds’ name is on the front page.
“I will be lodging formal complaints with the relevant authorities in the House of Lords.”
Lord Hain and Gordon Dadds deny any wrongdoing. Says Hain:
“I took the decision to name Sir Philip Green in my personal capacity as an independent member of the House of Lords. I was completely unaware Gordon Dadds were advising The Telegraph regarding this case… I stand RESOLUTELY by what I’ve said and neither retract nor apologise for standing up for human rights.”
A spokesman for Gordon Dadds adds – and best to include this because big lawyers can ruin you:
“Peter Hain is a self-employed consultant who provides occasional advice to the firm, relating principally to African affairs. Any suggestion that Gordon Dadds LLP has in any way acted improperly is entirely false.
“Peter Hain did not obtain any information from Gordon Dadds regarding this case. He has no involvement in the advice that we provide to The Telegraph newspaper, and he had no knowledge of any sensitive information regarding this case.”
From dealing with allegations of abuse of power and laws skewed against the little people, we’re all being entertained by the rich and powerful pulling each other to pieces. Meanwhile, the conversation in many households amounts to: if a rich man offered you a £1million quid to not tell anyone he’d committed an allegedly criminal act on your person, would you take the cash? Wonder if anyone’s got any dirt on the Royal Family they’re forbidden to tell us about – are they the only billionaires who never do wrong? And will women now stop spending at Top Shop?
Posted: 27th, October 2018 | In: Key Posts, News Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
