I’d like to use my blogger’s, non-parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the businessman implicated in the spurious allegations of sexual misconduct and racism for which the Court of Appeal upheld the non-disclosure orders on the staff concerned. In doing so I appreciate that I’m making a farce of the country’s legal system but I’m prepared to do this because this is a matter in ‘the public interest’. In that the public really hate Philip Green and will really enjoy sniggering at this latest discomfort for him, and will probably enjoy reading all the sordid details too. I’d also like to stress that there is absolutely no conflict of interest here for me personally, even though I am a paid consultant for the law firm acting to overturn the gagging orders.

Thank You.

Lord Tosser of Ulterior Motive.

Thus spake Peter Hain, who unilaterally decided that those pesky gagging orders were wrong and thus, being much cleverer and more switched on and morally astute than a bunch’s trumped up judges, effectively overturned their upholding of the gagging orders. More ‘steamrollered’ than overturned in his case. Because what’s said in Parliament is protected against legal action. Even for dickheads.

There’s a lot of issues here. What we all dislike about Philip Green not being one of them.

There’s the whole non-disclosure orders thing (NGOs). They were invented by some clever legal bods to protect things like the recipe for Coke. For financial company details. Corporate business shit. They weren’t created to protect lascivious directors when they behave in Neanderthal manner. Or rapist footballers.

But that’s what gagging orders have become; a rich man’s (let’s face it; its ALWAYS a man) tool for trying to avoid getting caught for what he obviously did. Not in a ‘getting caught in a burglary’ kind of way; that can’t be avoided. But for being naughty, immoral, disgusting, vile or just awful.

There’s also that no facts have been established as to the allegations against Green, though doubtless they’ll follow soon, but that leads to a presumption of guilt. Which is wrong. Though it must be noted that people who spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on gagging orders, plus the inevitable ‘pay-offs’ that often accompany them, can’t really be viewed in any way as ‘innocent’.

I don’t like Philip Green. Who does? I’m sure once the facts do emerge they’ll be horrible and sordid. But Peter Hain was so wrong in his action. Because what he basically said was ‘you think no man is above the law? Well this one is.’

Happy Monday

A xxxx