An NDA has it's place but it seems they are getting rather abused at times to cover up potential crimes. They are more useful for instances of constructive dismissal and bullying where the person involved no longer wants anything to do with the company and no crime has happened.
Green bought a dead business and kept it going for 15 years whilst it’s variety store competitors collpesed. Sure he took money out, but he didn’t strip it’s assets, not least because it had none.
BHS ran a pension fund deficit . No different from almost any other bussiness and just about every public sector pension fund. He didn’t rip off the pension fund like Maxwell.
Meanwhile Arcadia employs 20000 plus. So all the snowflakes jumping on the #metoo bandwagon destroy the livelihood of many, many people at a time when Arcadia is one of the few vaguely shining lights on the high street.
I’m sure I’d really dislike Green but he runs one of the very few viable high street retail operations in the UK. Sure, he’s mega rich, but he put his balls on the line to build out his business; that’s what entrepreneurs do and that’s why they become mega rich.
No one knows the details of the settlement agreements, which is what they will be. A non disclosure agreement is a very different thing to a settlement agreement.
He hasn’t broken the law, a settlement agreement can’t be used to cover up things that break the law as there are legal guidelines that govern how they are drawn up, so basically without seeing the content of the agreements, this is pure speculation.
Irrespective of what you may feel about him, he’s not been convicted of anything or prosecuted for anything. The person who needs a poke is the labour lord who abused parliamentary privileges to disclose speculation that related to a case the law firm he is retained for cash is engaged in as that in my book is corruption.
Still. We are used to that in Westminster from 90% of them.
Of interest is a column in the Spectator: Peter Hain has fundamentally undermined the rule of law | Coffee House, in which it was noted that: "at least two of the women concerned did not want the case to be revealed. In its decision, the court expressly mentioned that one of the women was concerned about her privacy if the case should be made public. Given that tabloid journalists are already trying to uncover the identities of the women concerned, you can see where she was coming from. " Interestingly, the Guardian ignores this point, instead pushing the agenda that "Lord Hain named Philip Green 'to promote justice and liberty'", which is so specious that it takes the breath away.