• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

JoeDavola

Philip Green

Recommended Posts

Surely by now people in this situation know it's going to come out through the HOC or HOL ? 

And I still wonder why the others implicated in this across the net - don't just come out and say it's nowt to do with me ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ccc said:

Surely by now people in this situation know it's going to come out through the HOC or HOL ? 

And I still wonder why the others implicated in this across the net - don't just come out and say it's nowt to do with me ? 

If we can get him to take out another 1999 super injunctions out (pro bono) it's the equivalent of repatriating his wife's dividend payment. 

Edit: seems like it would take another 2399. 

Edited by The Generation Game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, good.

I quite rate Alan Sugar, and Branson is very annoying but other than that banal -- so I was surprised when they'd (both) been identified as the nasty one.  I'm glad it is neither.

It being PG is a bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dgul said:

Well, good.

I quite rate Alan Sugar, and Branson is very annoying but other than that banal -- so I was surprised when they'd (both) been identified as the nasty one.  I'm glad it is neither.

It being PG is a bonus.

Ah but the brucey bonus is that PG has wasted 500ktrying to keep it out of the papers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

So a cunt has used his parliamentary privilege to name a cunt. Marvellous, we are all enriched by this spectacle.

 

There are allegedly other similar injunctions involving various celebs, sports and ex-sports stars? Why not name them all as, presumably, most of them are gagging orders for similiar reasons?

Does the politics of someone determine whether their name is exposed or not in Parlaiment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Banned said:

Guilty until proven innocent.

I can imagine women being really shy at coming forward with a multi billionaire

Yeah this is a problem for him, I think, in this trial-by-Twitter world.

A generally-detested billionaire risks not being able to get a fair trial in one sense, but in others, he has access to the finest lawyers and influence in the highest places - all in all it balances out, I'd say.

 

Edit : - and to my mind parliamentary privilege was abused in this case - assuming the women all accepted hush money and signed  non-disclosure documents, that should be the end of it.

Edited by swiss_democracy_for_all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Yeah this is a problem for him, I think, in this trial-by-Twitter world.

A generally-detested billionaire risks not being able to get a fair trial in one sense, but in others, he has access to the finest lawyers and influence in the highest places - all in all it balances out, I'd say.

If he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt these women would have taken him to court and then sued him for much more, they were in it for money not justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ffs.  I wanted it to be some whinging Remainer like that Zoopla MD. Boring!

1 minute ago, Banned said:

If he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt these women would have taken him to court and then sued him for much more, they were in it for money not justice.

For all we know he have settled them out of court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spunko said:

Oh ffs.  I wanted it to be some whinging Remainer like that Zoopla MD. Boring!

For all we know he have settled them out of court. 

They've taken their pieces of silver, imho they shouldn't be allowed another bite at the cherry.

I used to go to a bar where b to z list celebs hung out and the women were round them like flies round shite, a billionaire would have been a whole new league for these kind of women.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is odd though.

He appears to have paid this woman £500K.

She appears to have signed an NDA in return. That should have been that.

So why the need for the injunction? Was the injunction to stop a third party - i.e. a newspaper - reporting it or was it because the woman who received the payment changed her mind? I assume the latter from what I have read so far so will be interested to hear the full story.

Of course, just because he has been named, does not mean that the story is free to be published. Presumably, if she breaks the NDA not only will her info be made public but surely he could sue for breach of contract.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

...assuming the women all accepted hush money and signed  non-disclosure documents, that should be the end of it.

I absolutely disagree -- this is the American way and to me it seems like madness.  If a crime has been committed then it's been committed.  You don't stop it being committed by paying the victim.  Sure, the victim might be happier, but the crime remains.  To me:

  • If a witness to a crime (albeit the victim) stays quiet then they're essentially obstructing the course of justice
  • If they're paid to be quiet then they're guilty of accepting bribes to obstruct justice
  • If someone pays them to be quiet then they're guilty of perverting the course of justice

The whole point of the law working in this way is to ensure that an important part of the law happens -- that crimes being punished helps prevents crimes occurring in the future.  If the crimes aren't being identified and the punishments not being meted out, then essentially not only has that person bought themselves beyond the law, but they've also indirectly bought others into being victims (if others can see how you'd get away with it, then the threat of punishment no longer applies as a deterrent).

[As a completely-different example I'll choose Michael Jackson (as he's dead so can't sue) -- he bought-off charges of child abuse by paying dozens (no-one is quite sure how many) of children (and parents) money to keep quiet.  But if he'd have been bought before the judge at an early stage it could have prevented the later victims (if he was guilty) and also made other celebrities think twice about abuse (Glitter, Saville, say) -- indirectly the system of allowing hush-money resulted in an increased risk of abuse of other children in the 80's and 90's]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dgul said:

I absolutely disagree -- this is the American way and to me it seems like madness.  If a crime has been committed then it's been committed.  You don't stop it being committed by paying the victim.  Sure, the victim might be happier, but the crime remains.  To me:

  • If a witness to a crime (albeit the victim) stays quiet then they're essentially obstructing the course of justice
  • If they're paid to be quiet then they're guilty of accepting bribes to obstruct justice
  • If someone pays them to be quiet then they're guilty of perverting the course of justice

The whole point of the law working in this way is to ensure that an important part of the law happens -- that crimes being punished helps prevents crimes occurring in the future.  If the crimes aren't being identified and the punishments not being meted out, then essentially not only has that person bought themselves beyond the law, but they've also indirectly bought others into being victims (if others can see how you'd get away with it, then the threat of punishment no longer applies as a deterrent).

[As a completely-different example I'll choose Michael Jackson (as he's dead so can't sue) -- he bought-off charges of child abuse by paying dozens (no-one is quite sure how many) of children (and parents) money to keep quiet.  But if he'd have been bought before the judge at an early stage it could have prevented the later victims (if he was guilty) and also made other celebrities think twice about abuse (Glitter, Saville, say) -- indirectly the system of allowing hush-money resulted in an increased risk of abuse of other children in the 80's and 90's]

You are assuming that the accusations are of a criminal nature.

They may have been civil offences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

I absolutely disagree -- this is the American way and to me it seems like madness.  If a crime has been committed then it's been committed.  You don't stop it being committed by paying the victim.  Sure, the victim might be happier, but the crime remains.  To me:

  • If a witness to a crime (albeit the victim) stays quiet then they're essentially obstructing the course of justice
  • If they're paid to be quiet then they're guilty of accepting bribes to obstruct justice
  • If someone pays them to be quiet then they're guilty of perverting the course of justice

The whole point of the law working in this way is to ensure that an important part of the law happens -- that crimes being punished helps prevents crimes occurring in the future.  If the crimes aren't being identified and the punishments not being meted out, then essentially not only has that person bought themselves beyond the law, but they've also indirectly bought others into being victims (if others can see how you'd get away with it, then the threat of punishment no longer applies as a deterrent).

[As a completely-different example I'll choose Michael Jackson (as he's dead so can't sue) -- he bought-off charges of child abuse by paying dozens (no-one is quite sure how many) of children (and parents) money to keep quiet.  But if he'd have been bought before the judge at an early stage it could have prevented the later victims (if he was guilty) and also made other celebrities think twice about abuse (Glitter, Saville, say) -- indirectly the system of allowing hush-money resulted in an increased risk of abuse of other children in the 80's and 90's]

I take your point, but I think it's more valid in some situations than others (like the examples you've used).

In this case we're talking about (we think) adult women who made their own adult choices, and what constitutes a crime in sexual interactions has always been and remains quite fluid. I have been asked by women to do things which could easily, taken out of context, be criminal acts(I usually refuse as not my thing), and I bet TMT has done a lot more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

I take your point, but I think it's more valid in some situations than others (like the examples you've used).

In this case we're talking about (we think) adult women who made their own adult choices, and what constitutes a crime in sexual interactions has always been and remains quite fluid. I have been asked by women to do things which could easily, taken out of context, be criminal acts(I usually refuse as not my thing), and I bet TMT has done a lot more!

 

As I have said on here and on TOS many times, I believe that women have far darker and often more 'disgusting' sexual fantasies than men - unless I am some sexual prude.

But the societale traditional norms and law still favours females heavily in such matters, as if they are fragrant innocent virgins.

I think it is only fair now that we know who this woman is, what he allegedly did, for what the 500K was paid AND the circumstances in which it all took place? Did it, for example, happen at one of the exotic select costume parties that he and his wife are known to hold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.