Al Fayed and vicarious liability

[Mark Goodge]

Mohamed Al Fayed is now beyond both the risk of legal action and the ability
to be defamed, so I can safely start by saying that the various allegations
levelled against him are entirely credible and I have no reason to doubt
that he was, in fact, a serial sexual abuser and rapist on an industrial
scale.

However, I'm struggling to see how any enforceable liability attaches to
Harrods Ltd, Harrods (UK) Limited, Harrods Holdings Limited, QH
Participations Limited, Harrods Group (Holding) Limited or Qatar Investment
Authority (from start to finish, the current ownership chain of the premises
in Brompton Road, Knightsbridge). The fact that Fayed undoubtedly utilised
his position as the ultimate owner of the shop in order to gain access to
the staff does not, surely, make the company responsible.

A company can, in some circumstances, be vicariously liable for the unlawful
or abusive actions of its staff if it is (or should be) aware of them but
has taken no action to discipline the staff member or prevent the abuse. But
Fayed was not a staff member. He was the owner. There was never anyone at
any level in any of the companies which form part of the Harrods empire who
had any authority over Fayed. Individually, some of his employees might be
liable for turning a blind eye in order to keep their jobs. But the idea
that there is some kind of corporate liability seems to me to be implausible
in the extreme. The company was the vehicle of its owner. You don't sue a
car for being used in a ram raid.

For avoidance of doubt, I agree that there may be some moral liability (and,
indeed, the current owners of the company have set up a compensation scheme
for Fayed's victims, which I think is the right thing for them to do). But
lawyers representing some of the victims appear to be asserting that this
isn't enough, and that there is some enforceable corporate legal liability.
Which I can't see any basis for.

Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 20 Sep 2024 at 20:02:10 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
Mohamed Al Fayed is now beyond both the risk of legal action and the ability
to be defamed, so I can safely start by saying that the various allegations
levelled against him are entirely credible and I have no reason to doubt
that he was, in fact, a serial sexual abuser and rapist on an industrial
scale.
However, I'm struggling to see how any enforceable liability attaches to
Harrods Ltd, Harrods (UK) Limited, Harrods Holdings Limited, QH
Participations Limited, Harrods Group (Holding) Limited or Qatar Investment
Authority (from start to finish, the current ownership chain of the premises
in Brompton Road, Knightsbridge). The fact that Fayed undoubtedly utilised
his position as the ultimate owner of the shop in order to gain access to
the staff does not, surely, make the company responsible.
A company can, in some circumstances, be vicariously liable for the unlawful
or abusive actions of its staff if it is (or should be) aware of them but
has taken no action to discipline the staff member or prevent the abuse. But
Fayed was not a staff member. He was the owner. There was never anyone at
any level in any of the companies which form part of the Harrods empire who
had any authority over Fayed. Individually, some of his employees might be
liable for turning a blind eye in order to keep their jobs. But the idea
that there is some kind of corporate liability seems to me to be implausible
in the extreme. The company was the vehicle of its owner. You don't sue a
car for being used in a ram raid.
For avoidance of doubt, I agree that there may be some moral liability (and,
indeed, the current owners of the company have set up a compensation scheme
for Fayed's victims, which I think is the right thing for them to do). But
lawyers representing some of the victims appear to be asserting that this
isn't enough, and that there is some enforceable corporate legal liability.
Which I can't see any basis for.
Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?
Mark

I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with the actual
or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It is implied that
once he had them alone in his office or premises he raped them and that this
was common knowledge among fellow employees including the managers concerned.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter
On 20 Sep 2024 at 20:02:10 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
For avoidance of doubt, I agree that there may be some moral liability (and,
indeed, the current owners of the company have set up a compensation scheme
for Fayed's victims, which I think is the right thing for them to do). But
lawyers representing some of the victims appear to be asserting that this
isn't enough, and that there is some enforceable corporate legal liability.
Which I can't see any basis for.
Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?

I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with the actual
or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It is implied that
once he had them alone in his office or premises he raped them and that this
was common knowledge among fellow employees including the managers concerned.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But I'm still not sure that that
establishes corporate liability, as opposed to individual liability on the
part of those who knowingly facilited the abuse.

After all, Sir James Wilson Savile was a director of Outward Bound Global
and Ennerdale Apartments (Leeds) Limited, but as far as I'm aware nobody has
ever tried to sue them (and both companies still exist) for the actions that
he perpetrated. I'm not sure what the difference is between them and the
various Harrods companies.

Mark

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with
the actual or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It
is implied that once he had them alone in his office or premises he
raped them and that this was common knowledge among fellow employees
including the managers concerned.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But I'm still not sure that that
establishes corporate liability, as opposed to individual liability on the
part of those who knowingly facilited the abuse.

Eh? This seems almost like the platonic ideal of vicarious liability.
Where is your doubt coming from?

[Brian]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with
the actual or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It
is implied that once he had them alone in his office or premises he
raped them and that this was common knowledge among fellow employees
including the managers concerned.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But I'm still not sure that that
establishes corporate liability, as opposed to individual liability on the
part of those who knowingly facilited the abuse.

Eh? This seems almost like the platonic ideal of vicarious liability.
Where is your doubt coming from?

Are you suggesting in such cases the culprits should not be held personally
liable?

There is a difference if someone does something which could be construed to
be ‘furthering the Company interest’ - even if illegal but these
allegations hardly fall into that group.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Brian

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with
the actual or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It
is implied that once he had them alone in his office or premises he
raped them and that this was common knowledge among fellow employees
including the managers concerned.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But I'm still not sure that that
establishes corporate liability, as opposed to individual liability on the
part of those who knowingly facilited the abuse.

Eh? This seems almost like the platonic ideal of vicarious liability.
Where is your doubt coming from?

Are you suggesting in such cases the culprits should not be held personally
liable?

No, no-one is even remotely suggesting that! Vicarious liability of an
employer is an *additional* responsibility to that of the miscreant
themselves, and its practical importance is that the firm is quite likely to
have much more money than the employee.

Post by Brian
There is a difference if someone does something which could be construed to
be ‘furthering the Company interest’ - even if illegal but these
allegations hardly fall into that group.

[Brian]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Brian

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with
the actual or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It
is implied that once he had them alone in his office or premises he
raped them and that this was common knowledge among fellow employees
including the managers concerned.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But I'm still not sure that that
establishes corporate liability, as opposed to individual liability on the
part of those who knowingly facilited the abuse.

Eh? This seems almost like the platonic ideal of vicarious liability.
Where is your doubt coming from?

Are you suggesting in such cases the culprits should not be held personally
liable?

No, no-one is even remotely suggesting that! Vicarious liability of an
employer is an *additional* responsibility to that of the miscreant
themselves, and its practical importance is that the firm is quite likely to
have much more money than the employee.

So, in simple terms, you are saying it isn’t about how right / wrong it is
to hold a new owner responsible - ie the Company, it is about money.

That seems totally immoral to me.



I fully support victims of the type of behaviour / crimes getting
compensation etc from those responsible. That isn’t my issue. I also accept
that companies etc have a duty to have procedures etc to protect employees
etc. However, shifting responsibility from the culprit to the employer on
the basis of money is immoral, especially in a case like this where the
company has changed hands.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Brian

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Brian

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with
the actual or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It
is implied that once he had them alone in his office or premises he
raped them and that this was common knowledge among fellow employees
including the managers concerned.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But I'm still not sure that that
establishes corporate liability, as opposed to individual liability on the
part of those who knowingly facilited the abuse.

Eh? This seems almost like the platonic ideal of vicarious liability.
Where is your doubt coming from?

Are you suggesting in such cases the culprits should not be held personally
liable?

No, no-one is even remotely suggesting that! Vicarious liability of an
employer is an *additional* responsibility to that of the miscreant
themselves, and its practical importance is that the firm is quite likely to
have much more money than the employee.

So, in simple terms, you are saying it isn’t about how right / wrong it is
to hold a new owner responsible - ie the Company, it is about money.
That seems totally immoral to me.
I fully support victims of the type of behaviour / crimes getting
compensation etc from those responsible. That isn’t my issue. I also accept
that companies etc have a duty to have procedures etc to protect employees
etc. However, shifting responsibility from the culprit to the employer on
the basis of money is immoral, especially in a case like this where the
company has changed hands.

I really cannot see how you can have reached that conclusion except by having
no idea about tort law or about vicarious responsibility. Perhaps it would be
safer not to conclude that things "Ought not to be allowed!" (in the immortal
words of Mr Grouser) without having any comprehension of what the thing is
that you think ought not to be allowed.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 23:39:43 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with
the actual or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It
is implied that once he had them alone in his office or premises he
raped them and that this was common knowledge among fellow employees
including the managers concerned.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But I'm still not sure that that
establishes corporate liability, as opposed to individual liability on the
part of those who knowingly facilited the abuse.

Eh? This seems almost like the platonic ideal of vicarious liability.
Where is your doubt coming from?

My doubt is coming from the fact that Al Fayed was never an employee of
Harrods. I entirely agree, as I've said elsewhere, that in some cases an
employer can be liable for the actions of its employees. But that doesn't
apply here. If Harrods are liable for the actions of Al Fayed, then it must
stem from some other principle.

Mark

[miked]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter
On 20 Sep 2024 at 20:02:10 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
For avoidance of doubt, I agree that there may be some moral liability (and,
indeed, the current owners of the company have set up a compensation scheme
for Fayed's victims, which I think is the right thing for them to do). But
lawyers representing some of the victims appear to be asserting that this
isn't enough, and that there is some enforceable corporate legal liability.
Which I can't see any basis for.
Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?

I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with the actual
or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It is implied that
once he had them alone in his office or premises he raped them and that this
was common knowledge among fellow employees including the managers concerned.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But I'm still not sure that that
establishes corporate liability, as opposed to individual liability on the
part of those who knowingly facilited the abuse.
After all, Sir James Wilson Savile was a director of Outward Bound Global
and Ennerdale Apartments (Leeds) Limited, but as far as I'm aware nobody has
ever tried to sue them (and both companies still exist) for the actions that
he perpetrated. I'm not sure what the difference is between them and the
various Harrods companies.
Mark

Dont employers/companies have a duty of care towards the employees? the
evidence given today suggests it that various members of his security
staff were complicit also. If your attacked at work, your complaint
should be treated seriously and investigated by the company not threaten
the complainant. So surely they was a failure by the company to protect
its staff = employer negligence.

But failing that, couldnt they sue his estate? He must have other assets
in the UK/EU.

mike

[Brian]

Post by Roger Hayter
On 20 Sep 2024 at 20:02:10 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
Mohamed Al Fayed is now beyond both the risk of legal action and the ability
to be defamed, so I can safely start by saying that the various allegations
levelled against him are entirely credible and I have no reason to doubt
that he was, in fact, a serial sexual abuser and rapist on an industrial
scale.
However, I'm struggling to see how any enforceable liability attaches to
Harrods Ltd, Harrods (UK) Limited, Harrods Holdings Limited, QH
Participations Limited, Harrods Group (Holding) Limited or Qatar Investment
Authority (from start to finish, the current ownership chain of the premises
in Brompton Road, Knightsbridge). The fact that Fayed undoubtedly utilised
his position as the ultimate owner of the shop in order to gain access to
the staff does not, surely, make the company responsible.
A company can, in some circumstances, be vicariously liable for the unlawful
or abusive actions of its staff if it is (or should be) aware of them but
has taken no action to discipline the staff member or prevent the abuse. But
Fayed was not a staff member. He was the owner. There was never anyone at
any level in any of the companies which form part of the Harrods empire who
had any authority over Fayed. Individually, some of his employees might be
liable for turning a blind eye in order to keep their jobs. But the idea
that there is some kind of corporate liability seems to me to be implausible
in the extreme. The company was the vehicle of its owner. You don't sue a
car for being used in a ram raid.
For avoidance of doubt, I agree that there may be some moral liability (and,
indeed, the current owners of the company have set up a compensation scheme
for Fayed's victims, which I think is the right thing for them to do). But
lawyers representing some of the victims appear to be asserting that this
isn't enough, and that there is some enforceable corporate legal liability.
Which I can't see any basis for.
Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?
Mark

I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with the actual
or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It is implied that
once he had them alone in his office or premises he raped them and that this
was common knowledge among fellow employees including the managers concerned.

Without remotely suggesting the alleged behaviour was acceptable etc, even
if somehow it is proven, it is difficult to see how the current owners of
the Company should be liable.

A claim against Fayad’s estate yes- although this long after his death that
would push others rather than him.

The same goes for the dispute relating to a petrol station where, long
before it was purchased by the current owners, the storage tanks leaked.

What next, if someone buy’s a house previously owned by a serial murder who
escapes justice by dying but the bodies turn up in the garden, the new
owner is charged and jailed.

What must be determined is how and why these cases seem to have been
dismissed out of hand. The CPS has much to answer for.

[JNugent]

Post by Brian

Post by Roger Hayter
On 20 Sep 2024 at 20:02:10 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
Mohamed Al Fayed is now beyond both the risk of legal action and the ability
to be defamed, so I can safely start by saying that the various allegations
levelled against him are entirely credible and I have no reason to doubt
that he was, in fact, a serial sexual abuser and rapist on an industrial
scale.
However, I'm struggling to see how any enforceable liability attaches to
Harrods Ltd, Harrods (UK) Limited, Harrods Holdings Limited, QH
Participations Limited, Harrods Group (Holding) Limited or Qatar Investment
Authority (from start to finish, the current ownership chain of the premises
in Brompton Road, Knightsbridge). The fact that Fayed undoubtedly utilised
his position as the ultimate owner of the shop in order to gain access to
the staff does not, surely, make the company responsible.
A company can, in some circumstances, be vicariously liable for the unlawful
or abusive actions of its staff if it is (or should be) aware of them but
has taken no action to discipline the staff member or prevent the abuse. But
Fayed was not a staff member. He was the owner. There was never anyone at
any level in any of the companies which form part of the Harrods empire who
had any authority over Fayed. Individually, some of his employees might be
liable for turning a blind eye in order to keep their jobs. But the idea
that there is some kind of corporate liability seems to me to be implausible
in the extreme. The company was the vehicle of its owner. You don't sue a
car for being used in a ram raid.
For avoidance of doubt, I agree that there may be some moral liability (and,
indeed, the current owners of the company have set up a compensation scheme
for Fayed's victims, which I think is the right thing for them to do). But
lawyers representing some of the victims appear to be asserting that this
isn't enough, and that there is some enforceable corporate legal liability.
Which I can't see any basis for.
Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?
Mark

I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with the actual
or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It is implied that
once he had them alone in his office or premises he raped them and that this
was common knowledge among fellow employees including the managers concerned.

Without remotely suggesting the alleged behaviour was acceptable etc, even
if somehow it is proven, it is difficult to see how the current owners of
the Company should be liable.
A claim against Fayad’s estate yes- although this long after his death that
would push others rather than him.
The same goes for the dispute relating to a petrol station where, long
before it was purchased by the current owners, the storage tanks leaked.
What next, if someone buy’s a house previously owned by a serial murder who
escapes justice by dying but the bodies turn up in the garden, the new
owner is charged and jailed.
What must be determined is how and why these cases seem to have been
dismissed out of hand. The CPS has much to answer for.

I wonder who was in charge of the CPS at the time?

[The Todal]

Post by Brian

Post by Roger Hayter
On 20 Sep 2024 at 20:02:10 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
Mohamed Al Fayed is now beyond both the risk of legal action and the ability
to be defamed, so I can safely start by saying that the various allegations
levelled against him are entirely credible and I have no reason to doubt
that he was, in fact, a serial sexual abuser and rapist on an industrial
scale.
However, I'm struggling to see how any enforceable liability attaches to
Harrods Ltd, Harrods (UK) Limited, Harrods Holdings Limited, QH
Participations Limited, Harrods Group (Holding) Limited or Qatar Investment
Authority (from start to finish, the current ownership chain of the premises
in Brompton Road, Knightsbridge). The fact that Fayed undoubtedly utilised
his position as the ultimate owner of the shop in order to gain access to
the staff does not, surely, make the company responsible.
A company can, in some circumstances, be vicariously liable for the unlawful
or abusive actions of its staff if it is (or should be) aware of them but
has taken no action to discipline the staff member or prevent the abuse. But
Fayed was not a staff member. He was the owner. There was never anyone at
any level in any of the companies which form part of the Harrods empire who
had any authority over Fayed. Individually, some of his employees might be
liable for turning a blind eye in order to keep their jobs. But the idea
that there is some kind of corporate liability seems to me to be implausible
in the extreme. The company was the vehicle of its owner. You don't sue a
car for being used in a ram raid.
For avoidance of doubt, I agree that there may be some moral liability (and,
indeed, the current owners of the company have set up a compensation scheme
for Fayed's victims, which I think is the right thing for them to do). But
lawyers representing some of the victims appear to be asserting that this
isn't enough, and that there is some enforceable corporate legal liability.
Which I can't see any basis for.
Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?
Mark

I don't know the law, so I am only guessing whether this is sufficient, but
apparently according to reports middle management and the HR department used
to officially transfer shop staff Al Fayed had chosen to his personal staff
either in Harrods or at his residence without asking them, and with the actual
or implied threat of dismissal if they didn't cooperate. It is implied that
once he had them alone in his office or premises he raped them and that this
was common knowledge among fellow employees including the managers concerned.

Without remotely suggesting the alleged behaviour was acceptable etc, even
if somehow it is proven, it is difficult to see how the current owners of
the Company should be liable.

I don't see why. I recommend that everyone watch the BBC documentary
"Al Fayed: Predator at Harrods" which is still available on iPlayer.

Plainly employees of Harrods were molested by the owner of Harrods. It
makes no difference whether he was an employee or the owner and
employer. Harrods are vicariously liable.

If you are suggesting that once he sells the business to a new owner,
all liabilities stop with him and do not transfer to the new owner, then
that would require quite a specific and unusual legal contract to make
it so.

Harrods evidently accepts that they are liable and have settled claims
and have committed to settling more.

Post by Brian
A claim against Fayad’s estate yes- although this long after his death that
would push others rather than him.
The same goes for the dispute relating to a petrol station where, long
before it was purchased by the current owners, the storage tanks leaked.
What next, if someone buy’s a house previously owned by a serial murder who
escapes justice by dying but the bodies turn up in the garden, the new
owner is charged and jailed.
What must be determined is how and why these cases seem to have been
dismissed out of hand. The CPS has much to answer for.

That final point is really very important. The police evidently
conspired with al Fayed to cover up the allegations and someone ought to
investigate Metropolitan Police corruption, not for the first time. But
watch the documentary and judge for yourselves.

Another important point is that when al Fayed sued Vanity Fair for libel
and eventually dropped his claim, his lawyers demanded that Vanity fair
shred and destroy all documents relating to the case. And bizarrely the
lawyers for Vanity Fair agreed. And the proprietors of Vanity Fair
presumably didn't say to their lawyers "fuck off, we're not agreeing
that, he's obviously bluffing".

And when one of the women obtained compensation from Harrods/al Fayed,
again the lawyers demanded that she shred or destroy all her evidence,
and for some reason her laywers agreed to this, or persuaded her that
she should agree to this.

Who are these lawyers, who are so willing to do the bidding of their
opponents in litigation?

[Mark Goodge]

Post by The Todal

Post by Brian
What must be determined is how and why these cases seem to have been
dismissed out of hand. The CPS has much to answer for.

That final point is really very important. The police evidently
conspired with al Fayed to cover up the allegations and someone ought to
investigate Metropolitan Police corruption, not for the first time. But
watch the documentary and judge for yourselves.

The police did their job, surely. They investigated, decided there was a
case to answer, and passed the file to the CPS. Which declined to prosecute.

Post by The Todal
Another important point is that when al Fayed sued Vanity Fair for libel
and eventually dropped his claim, his lawyers demanded that Vanity fair
shred and destroy all documents relating to the case. And bizarrely the
lawyers for Vanity Fair agreed. And the proprietors of Vanity Fair
presumably didn't say to their lawyers "fuck off, we're not agreeing
that, he's obviously bluffing".

I suspect that in this case, it was an agreed resolution in return for
dropping the legal action.

Post by The Todal
And when one of the women obtained compensation from Harrods/al Fayed,
again the lawyers demanded that she shred or destroy all her evidence,
and for some reason her laywers agreed to this, or persuaded her that
she should agree to this.

This, on the other hand, seems a little more unreasonable. Although, again,
it may have been agreed in return for a bigger payout.

Post by The Todal
Who are these lawyers, who are so willing to do the bidding of their
opponents in litigation?

Or maybe they are advising their own clients to take the best deal on offer,
on the grounds that a better one is unlikely to be obtained by continuing.

Mark

[The Todal]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal

Post by Brian
What must be determined is how and why these cases seem to have been
dismissed out of hand. The CPS has much to answer for.

That final point is really very important. The police evidently
conspired with al Fayed to cover up the allegations and someone ought to
investigate Metropolitan Police corruption, not for the first time. But
watch the documentary and judge for yourselves.

The police did their job, surely. They investigated, decided there was a
case to answer, and passed the file to the CPS. Which declined to prosecute.

You may remember that Jimmy Savile was interviewed, the police were
intimidated by him, they interviewed several victims but told each one
that they were the only victim and it was their word against his, and
the CPS then - wrongly - said that the unsupported word of one victim
would be too weak a case.

So it does sound like a similar fuckup and if there was a proper inquiry
revealing the specific advice given by the CPS on the basis of whatever
specific evidence had been sent to the CPS, we might find that several
people did not do their job properly at all.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
Another important point is that when al Fayed sued Vanity Fair for libel
and eventually dropped his claim, his lawyers demanded that Vanity fair
shred and destroy all documents relating to the case. And bizarrely the
lawyers for Vanity Fair agreed. And the proprietors of Vanity Fair
presumably didn't say to their lawyers "fuck off, we're not agreeing
that, he's obviously bluffing".

I suspect that in this case, it was an agreed resolution in return for
dropping the legal action.

The odd thing, actually, was that the BBC documentary says that Vanity
Fair were obliged to destroy the evidence but that now seems
inconsistent with a piece in the Guardian today.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/sep/22/remorseless-ruthless-racist-my-battle-to-expose-mohamed-al-fayed

quote

‘Remorseless, ruthless, racist’: my battle to expose Mohamed Al Fayed

As UK editor of Vanity Fair, from the 1990s I amassed appalling
testimonies about the Harrods owner of sex abuse, racism and spying on
staff...

Both sides absorbed their own costs, no damages were paid, and we agreed
to place all evidence in locked storage. It seemed the right and humane
decision in the immediate aftermath of the shocking deaths. But it
wasn’t, because of the countless women who have suffered since our case
was settled, including many who were raped by a man who appeared
unaffected by grief or regret. I argued we should act like a
publication, not a business, and write another story revealing what we
had discovered, but there was understandably no appetite to return to
the subject of Mohamed Al Fayed. In one respect, I didn’t go along with
the settlement. All the boxes of evidence in my possession in September
1997 were placed in a secure setting, one that I controlled. Much of the
material was generated by me and was my copyright.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
And when one of the women obtained compensation from Harrods/al Fayed,
again the lawyers demanded that she shred or destroy all her evidence,
and for some reason her laywers agreed to this, or persuaded her that
she should agree to this.

This, on the other hand, seems a little more unreasonable. Although, again,
it may have been agreed in return for a bigger payout.

Post by The Todal
Who are these lawyers, who are so willing to do the bidding of their
opponents in litigation?

Or maybe they are advising their own clients to take the best deal on offer,
on the grounds that a better one is unlikely to be obtained by continuing.

Anyone advising the victim of a sexual assault to enter into a
non-disclosure agreement is betraying the best interests of justice and
of their client.

An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said to
protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal

Post by Brian
What must be determined is how and why these cases seem to have been
dismissed out of hand. The CPS has much to answer for.

That final point is really very important. The police evidently
conspired with al Fayed to cover up the allegations and someone ought to
investigate Metropolitan Police corruption, not for the first time. But
watch the documentary and judge for yourselves.

The police did their job, surely. They investigated, decided there was a
case to answer, and passed the file to the CPS. Which declined to prosecute.

You may remember that Jimmy Savile was interviewed, the police were
intimidated by him, they interviewed several victims but told each one
that they were the only victim and it was their word against his, and
the CPS then - wrongly - said that the unsupported word of one victim
would be too weak a case.
So it does sound like a similar fuckup and if there was a proper inquiry
revealing the specific advice given by the CPS on the basis of whatever
specific evidence had been sent to the CPS, we might find that several
people did not do their job properly at all.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
Another important point is that when al Fayed sued Vanity Fair for libel
and eventually dropped his claim, his lawyers demanded that Vanity fair
shred and destroy all documents relating to the case. And bizarrely the
lawyers for Vanity Fair agreed. And the proprietors of Vanity Fair
presumably didn't say to their lawyers "fuck off, we're not agreeing
that, he's obviously bluffing".

I suspect that in this case, it was an agreed resolution in return for
dropping the legal action.

The odd thing, actually, was that the BBC documentary says that Vanity
Fair were obliged to destroy the evidence but that now seems
inconsistent with a piece in the Guardian today.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/sep/22/remorseless-ruthless-racist-my-battle-to-expose-mohamed-al-fayed
quote
‘Remorseless, ruthless, racist’: my battle to expose Mohamed Al Fayed
As UK editor of Vanity Fair, from the 1990s I amassed appalling
testimonies about the Harrods owner of sex abuse, racism and spying on
staff...
Both sides absorbed their own costs, no damages were paid, and we agreed
to place all evidence in locked storage. It seemed the right and humane
decision in the immediate aftermath of the shocking deaths. But it
wasn’t, because of the countless women who have suffered since our case
was settled, including many who were raped by a man who appeared
unaffected by grief or regret. I argued we should act like a
publication, not a business, and write another story revealing what we
had discovered, but there was understandably no appetite to return to
the subject of Mohamed Al Fayed. In one respect, I didn’t go along with
the settlement. All the boxes of evidence in my possession in September
1997 were placed in a secure setting, one that I controlled. Much of the
material was generated by me and was my copyright.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
And when one of the women obtained compensation from Harrods/al Fayed,
again the lawyers demanded that she shred or destroy all her evidence,
and for some reason her laywers agreed to this, or persuaded her that
she should agree to this.

This, on the other hand, seems a little more unreasonable. Although, again,
it may have been agreed in return for a bigger payout.

Post by The Todal
Who are these lawyers, who are so willing to do the bidding of their
opponents in litigation?

Or maybe they are advising their own clients to take the best deal on offer,
on the grounds that a better one is unlikely to be obtained by continuing.

Anyone advising the victim of a sexual assault to enter into a
non-disclosure agreement is betraying the best interests of justice and
of their client.
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said to
protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

However, is it reasonable to expect the victim to take that principled
position? By the time of the settlement any faith they had in the legal
system is likely to be severely dented. The proper solution, surely, is to
make a law saying that such an agreement in these cases can have no legal
effect, and that victims can ignore it any time after they have safely banked
the settlement monies.

[Brian]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal

Post by Brian
What must be determined is how and why these cases seem to have been
dismissed out of hand. The CPS has much to answer for.

That final point is really very important. The police evidently
conspired with al Fayed to cover up the allegations and someone ought to
investigate Metropolitan Police corruption, not for the first time. But
watch the documentary and judge for yourselves.

The police did their job, surely. They investigated, decided there was a
case to answer, and passed the file to the CPS. Which declined to prosecute.

You may remember that Jimmy Savile was interviewed, the police were
intimidated by him, they interviewed several victims but told each one
that they were the only victim and it was their word against his, and
the CPS then - wrongly - said that the unsupported word of one victim
would be too weak a case.
So it does sound like a similar fuckup and if there was a proper inquiry
revealing the specific advice given by the CPS on the basis of whatever
specific evidence had been sent to the CPS, we might find that several
people did not do their job properly at all.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
Another important point is that when al Fayed sued Vanity Fair for libel
and eventually dropped his claim, his lawyers demanded that Vanity fair
shred and destroy all documents relating to the case. And bizarrely the
lawyers for Vanity Fair agreed. And the proprietors of Vanity Fair
presumably didn't say to their lawyers "fuck off, we're not agreeing
that, he's obviously bluffing".

I suspect that in this case, it was an agreed resolution in return for
dropping the legal action.

The odd thing, actually, was that the BBC documentary says that Vanity
Fair were obliged to destroy the evidence but that now seems
inconsistent with a piece in the Guardian today.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/sep/22/remorseless-ruthless-racist-my-battle-to-expose-mohamed-al-fayed
quote
‘Remorseless, ruthless, racist’: my battle to expose Mohamed Al Fayed
As UK editor of Vanity Fair, from the 1990s I amassed appalling
testimonies about the Harrods owner of sex abuse, racism and spying on
staff...
Both sides absorbed their own costs, no damages were paid, and we agreed
to place all evidence in locked storage. It seemed the right and humane
decision in the immediate aftermath of the shocking deaths. But it
wasn’t, because of the countless women who have suffered since our case
was settled, including many who were raped by a man who appeared
unaffected by grief or regret. I argued we should act like a
publication, not a business, and write another story revealing what we
had discovered, but there was understandably no appetite to return to
the subject of Mohamed Al Fayed. In one respect, I didn’t go along with
the settlement. All the boxes of evidence in my possession in September
1997 were placed in a secure setting, one that I controlled. Much of the
material was generated by me and was my copyright.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal
And when one of the women obtained compensation from Harrods/al Fayed,
again the lawyers demanded that she shred or destroy all her evidence,
and for some reason her laywers agreed to this, or persuaded her that
she should agree to this.

This, on the other hand, seems a little more unreasonable. Although, again,
it may have been agreed in return for a bigger payout.

Post by The Todal
Who are these lawyers, who are so willing to do the bidding of their
opponents in litigation?

Or maybe they are advising their own clients to take the best deal on offer,
on the grounds that a better one is unlikely to be obtained by continuing.

Anyone advising the victim of a sexual assault to enter into a
non-disclosure agreement is betraying the best interests of justice and
of their client.
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said to
protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

However, is it reasonable to expect the victim to take that principled
position? By the time of the settlement any faith they had in the legal
system is likely to be severely dented. The proper solution, surely, is to
make a law saying that such an agreement in these cases can have no legal
effect, and that victims can ignore it any time after they have safely banked
the settlement monies.

You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.

There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long after,
the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused fought back and
won. Since then, things have gone remarkably quiet- despite previous
suggestions more ‘revelations’ were to come.

I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly believe
some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up rather than risk
the publicity or at least try to limit it.

[Max Demian]

Post by Brian

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said to
protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

However, is it reasonable to expect the victim to take that principled
position? By the time of the settlement any faith they had in the legal
system is likely to be severely dented. The proper solution, surely, is to
make a law saying that such an agreement in these cases can have no legal
effect, and that victims can ignore it any time after they have safely banked
the settlement monies.

You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long after,
the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused fought back and
won. Since then, things have gone remarkably quiet- despite previous
suggestions more ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly believe
some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up rather than risk
the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number of
accusations that are appearing now.

Why was Al-Fayed so successful? Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit them
later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a Girl's
Best Friend?)

[The Todal]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said to
protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

However, is it reasonable to expect the victim to take that principled
position?  By the time of the settlement any faith they had in the legal
system is likely to be severely dented. The proper solution, surely, is to
make a law saying that such an agreement in these cases can have no legal
effect, and that victims can ignore it any time after they have safely banked
the settlement monies.

You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long after,
the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused fought back and
won.  Since then, things have gone remarkably quiet- despite previous
suggestions more  ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly believe
some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up rather than risk
the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number of
accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you to
take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of
Groper Al-Fayed.

Post by Max Demian
Why was Al-Fayed so successful?

He was dishonest in business dealings. He was largely a figure of fun in
Private Eye. Nobody really respected him. A slimy social climber.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/may/16/observer-harrods-takeover-mohamed-fayed

quote

We were campaigning for an inquiry into the takeover, something the
government was reluctant to concede in case it opened a can of worms.
Eventually, however, it launched an inquiry by Department of Trade
inspectors. Their report was delivered in July 1988, but the DTI
declined to publish it. It was a sensational document, justifying almost
every charge the Observer had laid against the Fayed brothers. "We are
satisfied," it stated, "that the image they created between November
1984 and March 1985 of their wealthy Egyptian ancestors was completely
bogus." The report concluded that Fayed could not have found the £615m
asking price for Harrods from his own resources. It fell short of saying
it was the Sultan of Brunei's money for lack of proof.



Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his

Post by Max Demian
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit them
later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a Girl's
Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.

He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his empire,
the sort of employment any young man or woman would be dazzled by, and
then invited them into his office or bedroom and molested them or
propositioned them and if they refused his advances he sacked them. Or
raped them.

[Max Demian]

[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long after,
the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused fought back and
won.  Since then, things have gone remarkably quiet- despite previous
suggestions more  ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly believe
some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up rather than risk
the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number of
accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you to
take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of
Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Post by The Todal
 Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his

Post by Max Demian
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit
them later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a
Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his empire,
the sort of employment any young man or woman would be dazzled by, and
then invited them into his office or bedroom and molested them or
propositioned them and if they refused his advances he sacked them. Or
raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.

Some people never learn.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Max Demian
[snip]

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long after,
the same 'victim', came unstuck when someone she accused fought back and
won. Since then, things have gone remarkably quiet- despite previous
suggestions more 'revelations' were to come.
I'm not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly believe
some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up rather than risk
the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number of accusations
that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you to take part in
a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his

eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit them later. (Do
girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his empire, the sort of
employment any young man or woman would be dazzled by, and then invited them into his
office or bedroom and molested them or propositioned them and if they refused his
advances he sacked them. Or raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been raped when the
cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

Indeed it does make you wonder sometimes.

How or why any young woman seeking to work in Britain's most prestigious
department store, shouldn't have expected to be raped by the owner
on a regular basis.,


bb

[The Todal]

Post by Max Demian
[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long after,
the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused fought back and
won.  Since then, things have gone remarkably quiet- despite previous
suggestions more  ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly believe
some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up rather than risk
the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number
of accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you
to take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of
Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Post by The Todal
  Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his

Post by Max Demian
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit
them later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a
Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his
empire, the sort of employment any young man or woman would be dazzled
by, and then invited them into his office or bedroom and molested them
or propositioned them and if they refused his advances he sacked them.
Or raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

Who are these people who you say "never learn"?

Do you share Mr Al Fayed's belief that any attractive young woman who
accepts employment with him is implicitly agreeing to have sexual
activity with him? You do unfortunately give that impression

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long after,
the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused fought back and
won. Since then, things have gone remarkably quiet- despite previous
suggestions more ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly believe
some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up rather than risk
the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number
of accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you
to take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of
Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Post by The Todal
Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his

Post by Max Demian
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit
them later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a
Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his
empire, the sort of employment any young man or woman would be dazzled
by, and then invited them into his office or bedroom and molested them
or propositioned them and if they refused his advances he sacked them.
Or raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

Did she win? She really should have done. Prostitution is not illegal in this
country, as you may know.

Post by The Todal
Who are these people who you say "never learn"?
Do you share Mr Al Fayed's belief that any attractive young woman who
accepts employment with him is implicitly agreeing to have sexual
activity with him? You do unfortunately give that impression

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long
after, the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused
fought back and won. Since then, things have gone remarkably
quiet- despite previous suggestions more ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly
believe some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up
rather than risk the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number
of accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you
to take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of
Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit
them later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a
Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his
empire, the sort of employment any young man or woman would be dazzled
by, and then invited them into his office or bedroom and molested them
or propositioned them and if they refused his advances he sacked them.
Or raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

Did she win? She really should have done. Prostitution is not illegal in this
country, as you may know.

Failing / being unable to pay a debt on demand is not an offence either.

Even issuing a cheque which bounces was never an immediate offence in
the absence of credible evidence that the cheque was issued deceitfully.

A few of mine bounced when I was younger and more impecunious. It was no
big deal for a cheque to be returned to the payee "refer to drawer". It
all got sorted out.

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal
Who are these people who you say "never learn"?
Do you share Mr Al Fayed's belief that any attractive young woman who
accepts employment with him is implicitly agreeing to have sexual
activity with him? You do unfortunately give that impression

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long
after, the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused
fought back and won. Since then, things have gone remarkably
quiet- despite previous suggestions more ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly
believe some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up
rather than risk the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number
of accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you
to take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of
Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit
them later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a
Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his
empire, the sort of employment any young man or woman would be dazzled
by, and then invited them into his office or bedroom and molested them
or propositioned them and if they refused his advances he sacked them.
Or raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

Did she win? She really should have done. Prostitution is not illegal in this
country, as you may know.

Failing / being unable to pay a debt on demand is not an offence either.
Even issuing a cheque which bounces was never an immediate offence in
the absence of credible evidence that the cheque was issued deceitfully.
A few of mine bounced when I was younger and more impecunious. It was no
big deal for a cheque to be returned to the payee "refer to drawer". It
all got sorted out.

I believe the criminal law is less lenient in at least some parts of America.

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal
Who are these people who you say "never learn"?
Do you share Mr Al Fayed's belief that any attractive young woman who
accepts employment with him is implicitly agreeing to have sexual
activity with him? You do unfortunately give that impression

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long
after, the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused
fought back and won. Since then, things have gone remarkably
quiet- despite previous suggestions more ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly
believe some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up
rather than risk the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number
of accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you
to take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of
Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit
them later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a
Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his
empire, the sort of employment any young man or woman would be dazzled
by, and then invited them into his office or bedroom and molested them
or propositioned them and if they refused his advances he sacked them.
Or raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

Did she win? She really should have done. Prostitution is not illegal in this
country, as you may know.

Failing / being unable to pay a debt on demand is not an offence either.
Even issuing a cheque which bounces was never an immediate offence in
the absence of credible evidence that the cheque was issued deceitfully.
A few of mine bounced when I was younger and more impecunious. It was no
big deal for a cheque to be returned to the payee "refer to drawer". It
all got sorted out.

I believe the criminal law is less lenient in at least some parts of America.

Was that case where the prostitute claimed to have been raped when the
cheque bounced an American one?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not
long after, the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she
accused fought back and won. Since then, things have gone
remarkably quiet- despite previous suggestions more
‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly
believe some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up
rather than risk the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the
number of accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking
you to take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or
innocence of Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would
benefit them later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a
Diamond a Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his
empire, the sort of employment any young man or woman would be
dazzled by, and then invited them into his office or bedroom and
molested them or propositioned them and if they refused his
advances he sacked them.
Or raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought
you were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be
"dazzled by the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer.
You would, I think, see it as an important foothold which might lead
to greater responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence"
of their rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have
been raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when
she wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

Did she win? She really should have done. Prostitution is not
illegal in this country, as you may know.

Failing / being unable to pay a debt on demand is not an offence either.
Even issuing a cheque which bounces was never an immediate offence in
the absence of credible evidence that the cheque was issued
deceitfully.
A few of mine bounced when I was younger and more impecunious. It was
no big deal for a cheque to be returned to the payee "refer to
drawer". It all got sorted out.

I believe the criminal law is less lenient in at least some parts of America.

Was that case where the prostitute claimed to have been raped when the
cheque bounced an American one?

US banking is so much fun with "out of state checks" ...

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long
after, the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused
fought back and won. Since then, things have gone remarkably
quiet- despite previous suggestions more ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly
believe some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up
rather than risk the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number
of accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you
to take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of
Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit
them later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a
Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his
empire, the sort of employment any young man or woman would be dazzled
by, and then invited them into his office or bedroom and molested them
or propositioned them and if they refused his advances he sacked them.
Or raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

Did she win? She really should have done. Prostitution is not illegal in this
country, as you may know.

Failing / being unable to pay a debt on demand is not an offence either.
Even issuing a cheque which bounces was never an immediate offence in
the absence of credible evidence that the cheque was issued deceitfully.
A few of mine bounced when I was younger and more impecunious. It was no
big deal for a cheque to be returned to the payee "refer to drawer". It
all got sorted out.

I believe the criminal law is less lenient in at least some parts of America.

Was that case where the prostitute claimed to have been raped when the
cheque bounced an American one?

That seems remarkably irrelevant - he wasn't charged with cheque fraud!

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are
guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long
after, the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused
fought back and won. Since then, things have gone remarkably
quiet- despite previous suggestions more ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly
believe some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up
rather than risk the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number
of accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you
to take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of
Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit
them later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a
Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his
empire, the sort of employment any young man or woman would be dazzled
by, and then invited them into his office or bedroom and molested them
or propositioned them and if they refused his advances he sacked them.
Or raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

Did she win? She really should have done. Prostitution is not illegal in this
country, as you may know.

Failing / being unable to pay a debt on demand is not an offence either.
Even issuing a cheque which bounces was never an immediate offence in
the absence of credible evidence that the cheque was issued deceitfully.
A few of mine bounced when I was younger and more impecunious. It was no
big deal for a cheque to be returned to the payee "refer to drawer". It
all got sorted out.

I believe the criminal law is less lenient in at least some parts of America.

Was that case where the prostitute claimed to have been raped when the
cheque bounced an American one?

That seems remarkably irrelevant - he wasn't charged with cheque fraud!

So what?

It was *you* who wrote:

"I believe the criminal law is less lenient in at least some parts of
America", in the context of a reference to bouncing cheques.

I was writing in response to that.

If you wish to withdraw your remark about legal provisions with respect
to cheques / checks in "...some parts of America...", fair enough, but
it's a bit rich to mention the law on cheques in said locations and then
complain that an answer to that is not relevant.

[The Todal]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
[snip]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Brian
You are assuming all allegations are true and those who pay up are guilty.
There were a number a related cases recently were at least one (
undisclosed but much speculated) settlement was made yet, not long after,
the same ‘victim’, came unstuck when someone she accused fought back and
won. Since then, things have gone remarkably quiet- despite previous
suggestions more ‘revelations’ were to come.
I’m not suggesting all allegations are bogus etc but I certainly believe
some are and, in some cases, high profile people, pay up rather than risk
the publicity or at least try to limit it.

I think we are entitled to be a *little* sceptical about the number
of accusations that are appearing now.

You are entitled to be as sceptical as you like. Nobody is asking you
to take part in a trial or a public vote on the guilt or innocence of
Groper Al-Fayed.

[snip]

Post by The Todal
Perhaps (some) women were dazzled by his

Post by Max Demian
eminence or thought an association with the Great Man would benefit
them later. (Do girls still aspire to mink coats, or is a Diamond a
Girl's Best Friend?)

I think you need to read the accounts given by the victims.
He flattered young girls by promising them well-paid jobs in his
empire, the sort of employment any young man or woman would be dazzled
by, and then invited them into his office or bedroom and molested them
or propositioned them and if they refused his advances he sacked them.
Or raped them.

That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

Did she win? She really should have done. Prostitution is not illegal in this
country, as you may know.

On appeal it was held that it isn't rape if a prostitute's client fails
to pay. So the defendant's conviction was overturned.

Maybe the decision could be bad law, though. In the Assange case, the
courts decided that if a woman insists that a condom be used and the
defendant ignores her wish or damages the condom deliberately, the jury
would be entitled to view that as rape.

It's all about whether setting pre-conditions will be relevant to "consent".

I'm sure most prostitutes demand payment in advance though. It would be
stupid not to. And I doubt if they would accept a cheque.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by The Todal
Maybe the decision could be bad law, though. In the Assange case, the
courts decided that if a woman insists that a condom be used and the
defendant ignores her wish or damages the condom deliberately, the jury
would be entitled to view that as rape.

Was that a UK case ?

[The Todal]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
Maybe the decision could be bad law, though. In the Assange case, the
courts decided that if a woman insists that a condom be used and the
defendant ignores her wish or damages the condom deliberately, the jury
would be entitled to view that as rape.

Was that a UK case ?

It was, yes.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

Para 90 - 91.

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
Maybe the decision could be bad law, though. In the Assange case, the
courts decided that if a woman insists that a condom be used and the
defendant ignores her wish or damages the condom deliberately, the jury
would be entitled to view that as rape.

Was that a UK case ?

I didn't know it had come before a jury (if you'll pardon the expression).

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
Maybe the decision could be bad law, though. In the Assange case, the
courts decided that if a woman insists that a condom be used and the
defendant ignores her wish or damages the condom deliberately, the jury
would be entitled to view that as rape.

Was that a UK case ?

It was a Swedish one, but I believe we don't extradite people for actions that
would not be a crime in this country; except if the Americans ask us to, of
course. They don't even have to give us details of the case.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 16:00:45 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
Maybe the decision could be bad law, though. In the Assange case, the
courts decided that if a woman insists that a condom be used and the
defendant ignores her wish or damages the condom deliberately, the jury
would be entitled to view that as rape.

Was that a UK case ?

Yes, it was. It was part of the extradition proceedings prior to him
skipping bail. The UK court didn't state that it *was* rape, merely that it
would be open to a jury to conclude that it was rape.

The reason the UK court had to make that decision was because of the
dual-criminality requirement for extradition. Assange could not have been
extradited to Sweden for something which is not a crime in the UK. So the
court had to decide whether, if consent was conditional on the use of the
condom during intercourse, and the condition was deliberately disregarded,
that was capable of amounting to rape. The court concluded that it was
capable of amounting to rape.

Whether it actually amounted to rape would, of course, be a matter for the
actual trial, and the UK court made no judgment on whether Assange was
guilty or not. All that the UK court did was to state that, had the rape
case been brought in a UK criminal trial, it could have resulted in a
conviction. Which is what is necessary for dual-criminality to apply.

Mark

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 16:00:45 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
Maybe the decision could be bad law, though. In the Assange case, the
courts decided that if a woman insists that a condom be used and the
defendant ignores her wish or damages the condom deliberately, the jury
would be entitled to view that as rape.

Was that a UK case ?

Yes, it was. It was part of the extradition proceedings prior to him
skipping bail. The UK court didn't state that it *was* rape, merely that it
would be open to a jury to conclude that it was rape.
The reason the UK court had to make that decision was because of the
dual-criminality requirement for extradition. Assange could not have been
extradited to Sweden for something which is not a crime in the UK. So the
court had to decide whether, if consent was conditional on the use of the
condom during intercourse, and the condition was deliberately disregarded,
that was capable of amounting to rape. The court concluded that it was
capable of amounting to rape.
Whether it actually amounted to rape would, of course, be a matter for the
actual trial, and the UK court made no judgment on whether Assange was
guilty or not. All that the UK court did was to state that, had the rape
case been brought in a UK criminal trial, it could have resulted in a
conviction. Which is what is necessary for dual-criminality to apply.

But the European Arrest Warrant doesn't require dual criminality for
a list of specified offences, one of which is rape.

(See Article 2 of
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002F0584 )

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 16:00:45 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
Maybe the decision could be bad law, though. In the Assange case, the
courts decided that if a woman insists that a condom be used and the
defendant ignores her wish or damages the condom deliberately, the jury
would be entitled to view that as rape.

Was that a UK case ?

Yes, it was. It was part of the extradition proceedings prior to him
skipping bail. The UK court didn't state that it *was* rape, merely that it
would be open to a jury to conclude that it was rape.
The reason the UK court had to make that decision was because of the
dual-criminality requirement for extradition. Assange could not have been
extradited to Sweden for something which is not a crime in the UK. So the
court had to decide whether, if consent was conditional on the use of the
condom during intercourse, and the condition was deliberately disregarded,
that was capable of amounting to rape. The court concluded that it was
capable of amounting to rape.
Whether it actually amounted to rape would, of course, be a matter for the
actual trial, and the UK court made no judgment on whether Assange was
guilty or not. All that the UK court did was to state that, had the rape
case been brought in a UK criminal trial, it could have resulted in a
conviction. Which is what is necessary for dual-criminality to apply.

But the European Arrest Warrant doesn't require dual criminality for
a list of specified offences, one of which is rape.
(See Article 2 of
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002F0584 )

I have just skimmed the judgement on the extradition case. It is true that
dual criminality was relevant to three of the Swedish charges against Assange,
but, as you remark, that would not apply to a charge of rape. So the issue on
the rape charge was not dual criminality but whether the Swedish authorities
"fairly and accurately" described the charge against him as rape. Which was a
way of evading the arrest warrant schedule saying that a rape charge did not
require dual criminality, by questioning, I suppose, whether any fair and
reasonable European prosecuting authority could describe his action as rape.
The answer was yes, of course.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter
I have just skimmed the judgement on the extradition case. It is true that
dual criminality was relevant to three of the Swedish charges against Assange,
but, as you remark, that would not apply to a charge of rape. So the issue on
the rape charge was not dual criminality but whether the Swedish authorities
"fairly and accurately" described the charge against him as rape. Which was a
way of evading the arrest warrant schedule saying that a rape charge did not
require dual criminality, by questioning, I suppose, whether any fair and
reasonable European prosecuting authority could describe his action as rape.
The answer was yes, of course.

Well, it's good of you to conclude that for us of course, but I think
normal legal practice is for the facts to be determined in what we call
a 'trial'.

[The Todal]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter
I have just skimmed the judgement on the extradition case. It is true that
dual criminality was relevant to three of the Swedish charges against Assange,
but, as you remark, that would not apply to a charge of rape. So the issue on
the rape charge was not dual criminality but whether the Swedish authorities
"fairly and accurately" described the charge against him as rape.
Which was a
way of evading the arrest warrant schedule saying that a rape charge did not
require dual criminality, by questioning, I suppose, whether any fair and
reasonable European prosecuting authority could describe his action as rape.
The answer was yes, of course.

Well, it's good of you to conclude that for us of course, but I think
normal legal practice is for the facts to be determined in what we call
a 'trial'.

You would perform a valuable public service if you were to have sex with
a woman who told you that you must use a condom, deliberately removed
the condom before inserting your privy member into her vajayjay, and
then encouraged her to complain to the police.

You are right, we do need a definitive legal precedent from our courts
and I think you're the man to get on the job.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter
I have just skimmed the judgement on the extradition case. It is true that
dual criminality was relevant to three of the Swedish charges against Assange,
but, as you remark, that would not apply to a charge of rape. So the issue on
the rape charge was not dual criminality but whether the Swedish authorities
"fairly and accurately" described the charge against him as rape. Which was a
way of evading the arrest warrant schedule saying that a rape charge did not
require dual criminality, by questioning, I suppose, whether any fair and
reasonable European prosecuting authority could describe his action as rape.
The answer was yes, of course.

Well, it's good of you to conclude that for us of course, but I think
normal legal practice is for the facts to be determined in what we call
a 'trial'.

You totally miss the point. What was established was not that he was guilty of
rape, only that on the facts put forward by the prosecution it would be
appropriate to put the accusation to an English jury, along of course with the
his defence. No prediction was made of whether he was guilty, just that the
actions described, if proven to be true, could amount to rape under English
law. I don't see how I can make it much simpler for you.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter
I have just skimmed the judgement on the extradition case. It is true that
dual criminality was relevant to three of the Swedish charges against Assange,
but, as you remark, that would not apply to a charge of rape. So the issue on
the rape charge was not dual criminality but whether the Swedish authorities
"fairly and accurately" described the charge against him as rape. Which was a
way of evading the arrest warrant schedule saying that a rape charge did not
require dual criminality, by questioning, I suppose, whether any fair and
reasonable European prosecuting authority could describe his action as rape.
The answer was yes, of course.

Well, it's good of you to conclude that for us of course, but I think
normal legal practice is for the facts to be determined in what we call
a 'trial'.

You totally miss the point. What was established was not that he was guilty of
rape, only that on the facts put forward by the prosecution it would be
appropriate to put the accusation to an English jury, along of course with the
his defence. No prediction was made of whether he was guilty, just that the
actions described, if proven to be true, could amount to rape under English
law. I don't see how I can make it much simpler for you.

The point you're missing is that we do not know that what the
prosecution was putting forward were actually facts. Before a trial
they are merely allegations, which may be entirely false. It's the
trial itself that decides what the facts are, and it's the likelihood of
proving them that determines whether there should be a trial.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter
I have just skimmed the judgement on the extradition case. It is true that
dual criminality was relevant to three of the Swedish charges against Assange,
but, as you remark, that would not apply to a charge of rape. So the issue on
the rape charge was not dual criminality but whether the Swedish authorities
"fairly and accurately" described the charge against him as rape. Which was a
way of evading the arrest warrant schedule saying that a rape charge did not
require dual criminality, by questioning, I suppose, whether any fair and
reasonable European prosecuting authority could describe his action as rape.
The answer was yes, of course.

Well, it's good of you to conclude that for us of course, but I think
normal legal practice is for the facts to be determined in what we call
a 'trial'.

You totally miss the point. What was established was not that he was guilty of
rape, only that on the facts put forward by the prosecution it would be
appropriate to put the accusation to an English jury, along of course with the
his defence. No prediction was made of whether he was guilty, just that the
actions described, if proven to be true, could amount to rape under English
law. I don't see how I can make it much simpler for you.

The point you're missing is that we do not know that what the
prosecution was putting forward were actually facts. Before a trial
they are merely allegations, which may be entirely false. It's the
trial itself that decides what the facts are, and it's the likelihood of
proving them that determines whether there should be a trial.

The point you are missing is that it doesn't matter in the slightest whether
they are actually facts from the point of view of the decision on extradition.
We rely on the Swedish court to determine that, the Swedish prosecuting
authorities already having determined that there should be a trial.

I suppose Assange could have put forward that they were fraudulent accusations
put forward dishonestly by the Swedish state to enable rendition to the US,
but I don't think the English court would have heard that argument. They are
bound by the law to assume the Swedes were acting in good faith. And I don't
think our politicians would have declared Sweden to be a rogue state either.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter
I have just skimmed the judgement on the extradition case. It is true that
dual criminality was relevant to three of the Swedish charges against Assange,
but, as you remark, that would not apply to a charge of rape. So the issue on
the rape charge was not dual criminality but whether the Swedish authorities
"fairly and accurately" described the charge against him as rape. Which was a
way of evading the arrest warrant schedule saying that a rape charge did not
require dual criminality, by questioning, I suppose, whether any fair and
reasonable European prosecuting authority could describe his action as rape.
The answer was yes, of course.

Well, it's good of you to conclude that for us of course, but I think
normal legal practice is for the facts to be determined in what we call
a 'trial'.

You totally miss the point. What was established was not that he was guilty of
rape, only that on the facts put forward by the prosecution it would be
appropriate to put the accusation to an English jury, along of course with the
his defence. No prediction was made of whether he was guilty, just that the
actions described, if proven to be true, could amount to rape under English
law. I don't see how I can make it much simpler for you.

The point you're missing is that we do not know that what the
prosecution was putting forward were actually facts. Before a trial
they are merely allegations, which may be entirely false. It's the
trial itself that decides what the facts are, and it's the likelihood of
proving them that determines whether there should be a trial.

The point you are missing is that it doesn't matter in the slightest whether
they are actually facts from the point of view of the decision on extradition.
We rely on the Swedish court to determine that, the Swedish prosecuting
authorities already having determined that there should be a trial.

But the Swedish charges were dropped, meaning that there shouldn't be
one, nor any extradition.

[The Todal]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter
I have just skimmed the judgement on the extradition case. It is true that
dual criminality was relevant to three of the Swedish charges against Assange,
but, as you remark, that would not apply to a charge of rape. So the issue on
the rape charge was not dual criminality but whether the Swedish authorities
"fairly and accurately" described the charge against him as rape.
Which was a
way of evading the arrest warrant schedule saying that a rape charge did not
require dual criminality, by questioning, I suppose, whether any fair and
reasonable European prosecuting authority could describe his action as rape.
The answer was yes, of course.

Well, it's good of you to conclude that for us of course, but I think
normal legal practice is for the facts to be determined in what we call
a 'trial'.

You totally miss the point. What was established was not that he was guilty of
rape, only that on the facts put forward by the prosecution it would be
appropriate to put the accusation to an English jury, along of course with the
his defence. No prediction was made of whether he was guilty, just that the
actions described, if proven to be true, could amount to rape under English
law. I don't see how I can make it much simpler for you.

The point you're missing is that we do not know that what the
prosecution was putting forward were actually facts.  Before a trial
they are merely allegations, which may be entirely false.  It's the
trial itself that decides what the facts are, and it's the likelihood of
proving them that determines whether there should be a trial.

The point you are missing is that it doesn't matter in the slightest whether
they are actually facts from the point of view of the decision on extradition.
  We rely on the Swedish court to determine that, the Swedish prosecuting
authorities already having determined that there should be a trial.

But the Swedish charges were dropped, meaning that there shouldn't be
one, nor any extradition.

But the point you are missing is that even though the Swedish charges
were dropped (as I recall, because of a time limit in Sweden) it does
not mean that a properly instructed jury could not have convicted
Assange of rape.

[JNugent]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter
I have just skimmed the judgement on the extradition case. It is true that
dual criminality was relevant to three of the Swedish charges against Assange,
but, as you remark, that would not apply to a charge of rape. So the issue on
the rape charge was not dual criminality but whether the Swedish authorities
"fairly and accurately" described the charge against him as rape.
Which was a
way of evading the arrest warrant schedule saying that a rape charge did not
require dual criminality, by questioning, I suppose, whether any fair and
reasonable European prosecuting authority could describe his action as rape.
The answer was yes, of course.

Well, it's good of you to conclude that for us of course, but I think
normal legal practice is for the facts to be determined in what we
call a 'trial'.

You totally miss the point. What was established was not that he was
guilty of rape, only that on the facts put forward by the prosecution
it would be appropriate to put the accusation to an English jury,
along of course with the his defence.
No prediction was made of whether he was guilty, just that the
actions described, if proven to be true, could amount to rape under
English law. I don't see how I can make it much simpler for you.

The point you're missing is that we do not know that what the
prosecution was putting forward were actually facts.  Before a trial
they are merely allegations, which may be entirely false.  It's the
trial itself that decides what the facts are, and it's the likelihood of
proving them that determines whether there should be a trial.

The point you are missing is that it doesn't matter in the slightest
whether hey are actually facts from the point of view of the decision
on extradition.
We rely on the Swedish court to determine that, the Swedish prosecuting
authorities already having determined that there should be a trial.

But the Swedish charges were dropped, meaning that there shouldn't be
one, nor any extradition.

The "Swedish charges" were dropped (if that is the correct term) only
because the proceedings had become time-barred. Not because the evidence
was insufficiently cogent.

You *knew* that!

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter
I have just skimmed the judgement on the extradition case. It is true that
dual criminality was relevant to three of the Swedish charges against Assange,
but, as you remark, that would not apply to a charge of rape. So the issue on
the rape charge was not dual criminality but whether the Swedish authorities
"fairly and accurately" described the charge against him as rape. Which was a
way of evading the arrest warrant schedule saying that a rape charge did not
require dual criminality, by questioning, I suppose, whether any fair and
reasonable European prosecuting authority could describe his action as rape.
The answer was yes, of course.

Well, it's good of you to conclude that for us of course, but I think
normal legal practice is for the facts to be determined in what we call
a 'trial'.

You totally miss the point. What was established was not that he was guilty of
rape, only that on the facts put forward by the prosecution it would be
appropriate to put the accusation to an English jury, along of course with the
his defence. No prediction was made of whether he was guilty, just that the
actions described, if proven to be true, could amount to rape under English
law. I don't see how I can make it much simpler for you.

The point you're missing is that we do not know that what the
prosecution was putting forward were actually facts. Before a trial
they are merely allegations, which may be entirely false. It's the
trial itself that decides what the facts are, and it's the likelihood of
proving them that determines whether there should be a trial.

The point you are missing is that it doesn't matter in the slightest whether
they are actually facts from the point of view of the decision on extradition.
We rely on the Swedish court to determine that, the Swedish prosecuting
authorities already having determined that there should be a trial.

But the Swedish charges were dropped, meaning that there shouldn't be
one, nor any extradition.

Indeed, but what has that got to do with the original judgement, which still
stands.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Roger Hayter
The point you are missing is that it doesn't matter in the slightest
whether they are actually facts from the point of view of the decision
on extradition.
We rely on the Swedish court to determine that, the Swedish prosecuting
authorities already having determined that there should be a trial.
I suppose Assange could have put forward that they were fraudulent
accusations put forward dishonestly by the Swedish state to enable
rendition to the US, but I don't think the English court would have
heard that argument. They are bound by the law to assume the Swedes
were acting in good faith.

They are? Who says? What law?

After all the English courts are not bound by law to assume that even an
English prosecutor is acting in good faith. In some cases they have found
that a prosecutor was not so acting.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Roger Hayter
The point you are missing is that it doesn't matter in the slightest
whether they are actually facts from the point of view of the decision
on extradition.
We rely on the Swedish court to determine that, the Swedish prosecuting
authorities already having determined that there should be a trial.
I suppose Assange could have put forward that they were fraudulent
accusations put forward dishonestly by the Swedish state to enable
rendition to the US, but I don't think the English court would have
heard that argument. They are bound by the law to assume the Swedes
were acting in good faith.

They are? Who says? What law?

The extradition law. Countries generally only make extradition treaties
with other countries whose legal systems they regard as likely to be
just and fair, by and large.

Post by Handsome Jack
After all the English courts are not bound by law to assume that even an
English prosecutor is acting in good faith. In some cases they have found
that a prosecutor was not so acting.

Yes, but we are not talking about an English court deciding if someone
is guilty of a crime, we are talking about an English court deciding if
it sounds like someone probably has a case to answer in another court
abroad.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Roger Hayter
The point you are missing is that it doesn't matter in the slightest
whether they are actually facts from the point of view of the decision
on extradition.
We rely on the Swedish court to determine that, the Swedish prosecuting
authorities already having determined that there should be a trial.
I suppose Assange could have put forward that they were fraudulent
accusations put forward dishonestly by the Swedish state to enable
rendition to the US, but I don't think the English court would have
heard that argument. They are bound by the law to assume the Swedes
were acting in good faith.

They are? Who says? What law?
After all the English courts are not bound by law to assume that even an
English prosecutor is acting in good faith. In some cases they have found
that a prosecutor was not so acting.

But I think you will find the extradition hearing *was* so bound by the law
relating to the European arrest warrant. Whether there was any possible appeal
on the grounds you suggest except to the executive I don't know. But if there
was surely Assange's lawyers would have pursued it. The same applies to
English commital proceedings, if they ever actually had an opposed hearing.
Any attack on the prosecutors' good faith would have to wait for the actual
trial, I think.

[JNugent]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
Maybe the decision could be bad law, though. In the Assange case, the
courts decided that if a woman insists that a condom be used and the
defendant ignores her wish or damages the condom deliberately, the jury
would be entitled to view that as rape.

Was that a UK case ?

Yes, it was. It was part of the extradition proceedings prior to him
skipping bail. The UK court didn't state that it *was* rape, merely that it
would be open to a jury to conclude that it was rape.

A jury in the UK?

Or a jury in Sweden?

Post by Mark Goodge
The reason the UK court had to make that decision was because of the
dual-criminality requirement for extradition. Assange could not have been
extradited to Sweden for something which is not a crime in the UK. So the
court had to decide whether, if consent was conditional on the use of the
condom during intercourse, and the condition was deliberately disregarded,
that was capable of amounting to rape. The court concluded that it was
capable of amounting to rape.

"...capable of..."

Post by Mark Goodge
Whether it actually amounted to rape would, of course, be a matter for the
actual trial, and the UK court made no judgment on whether Assange was
guilty or not. All that the UK court did was to state that, had the rape
case been brought in a UK criminal trial, it could have resulted in a
conviction. Which is what is necessary for dual-criminality to apply.
Mark

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by The Todal

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

Did she win? She really should have done. Prostitution is not
illegal in this country, as you may know.

On appeal it was held that it isn't rape if a prostitute's client fails
to pay. So the defendant's conviction was overturned.
Maybe the decision could be bad law, though. In the Assange case, the
courts decided that if a woman insists that a condom be used and the
defendant ignores her wish or damages the condom deliberately, the jury
would be entitled to view that as rape.
It's all about whether setting pre-conditions will be relevant to "consent".
I'm sure most prostitutes demand payment in advance though. It would be
stupid not to. And I doubt if they would accept a cheque.
From a regular client, maybe.

[Max Demian]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Misogyny is baked into the relation between the sexes. Probably
biological if you think about it.

[The Todal]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Misogyny is baked into the relation between the sexes. Probably
biological if you think about it.

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them": Germaine Greer.

[JNugent]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Misogyny is baked into the relation between the sexes. Probably
biological if you think about it.

Interesting.

It raises the question of nature v. nurture.

If there were some human societies wherein females were the dominant
sex* in the way that males are in any country one can think of, that
would be the first glimmerings of a case for the "nurture" argument.

[* Saving for the mental images of the henpecked husband and the
battleaxe mother-in-law.]

[Max Demian]

Post by JNugent

Post by Max Demian

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Misogyny is baked into the relation between the sexes. Probably
biological if you think about it.

Interesting.

There is bound to be asymmetry between the sexes. A man is jealous as he
doesn't want to raise another man's child; the woman because he doesn't
want his man to run off and avoid contributing to its upkeep.

Women are the ones that get pregnant and have to raise the child. (It's
only custom and law that requires the man to contribute to its upkeep.)
A man can spread his seed far and wide.

A man may resent the control that women have over their sexual
satisfaction - hence serial killers of women. This has also been found
in the Church. Tertullian (160 - 225) described woman as "a temple built
over a sewer" (Templum aedificatum super cloacam)

[Andy Walker]

[...]

Post by JNugent

Post by Max Demian
Misogyny is baked into the relation between the sexes. Probably
biological if you think about it.

Interesting.
It raises the question of nature v. nurture.
If there were some human societies wherein females were the dominant
sex* in the way that males are in any country one can think of, that
would be the first glimmerings of a case for the "nurture" argument.

Somewhat serendipitously, Janina Ramirez's "Raiders of the Lost
Past" [BBC4 yesterday, Sept 28th] dealt with the discovery of Chatalhoyuk,
the oldest known city [founded ~9K years ago]. According to JR, the city
treated the sexes equally, which, if true, would at least be an example of
a place where males weren't dominant, and a counter-example to "baked in"
misogyny.

Robert Graves's book "The Greek Myths" proposed that the myths are
best explained as describing a switch in ancient times from matriarchy to
patriarchy. But I suspect that his theory is nowadays in disrepute.

Meanwhile, Wiki, at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#History_and_distribution

lists a number of modern [and ancient] societies alleged to be matriarchal,
but they all seem to be somewhat vague and contentious. It seems to be a
very difficult subject to discuss without getting involved with "Women's
Lib" and its ideology.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Andy Walker
[...]

Post by JNugent

Post by Max Demian
Misogyny is baked into the relation between the sexes. Probably
biological if you think about it.

Interesting.
It raises the question of nature v. nurture.
If there were some human societies wherein females were the dominant
sex* in the way that males are in any country one can think of, that
would be the first glimmerings of a case for the "nurture" argument.

Somewhat serendipitously, Janina Ramirez's "Raiders of the Lost
Past" [BBC4 yesterday, Sept 28th] dealt with the discovery of Chatalhoyuk,
the oldest known city [founded ~9K years ago]. According to JR, the city
treated the sexes equally, which, if true, would at least be an example of
a place where males weren't dominant, and a counter-example to "baked in"
misogyny.
Robert Graves's book "The Greek Myths" proposed that the myths are
best explained as describing a switch in ancient times from matriarchy to
patriarchy. But I suspect that his theory is nowadays in disrepute.
Meanwhile, Wiki, at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#History_and_distribution
lists a number of modern [and ancient] societies alleged to be matriarchal,
but they all seem to be somewhat vague and contentious. It seems to be a
very difficult subject to discuss without getting involved with "Women's
Lib" and its ideology.

And there is at least one social ape (Bonobo) which has a matriarchal society,
despite similar genetics and physiology to us (and almost identical to
Chimpanzees). So the biological necessity of misogyny/patriarchy seems rather
a patriarchal convenience than a valid theory.

Andy why would one want to discuss historical society without "getting
involved" with feminism?

[Andy Walker]

[Re matriarchal societies:]

Post by Roger Hayter

[...] It seems to be a
very difficult subject to discuss without getting involved with "Women's
Lib" and its ideology.

[...]

Post by Roger Hayter
Andy why would one want to discuss historical society without "getting
involved" with feminism?

Because the "Women's Lib" aspects take over the debate and, IME,
generate much more heat than light. The rule in civilised company used
to be that you didn't discuss religion or politics over the dinner table.
That now has to be extended [again, in civilised company] to gender, and
no doubt other contentious topics of the day/week/.../decade. People try
to argue logically about them, but in the present state of society they
have differing views and are too often incapable of seeing the PoV of the
other people round the table. It's worse, BTW, if they all agree; then
they don't even hear the /PoV/ of others [cf the "Westminster Bubble"].

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Andy Walker
[Re matriarchal societies:]

Post by Roger Hayter

[...] It seems to be a
very difficult subject to discuss without getting involved with "Women's
Lib" and its ideology.

[...]

Post by Roger Hayter
Andy why would one want to discuss historical society without "getting
involved" with feminism?

Because the "Women's Lib" aspects take over the debate and, IME,
generate much more heat than light. The rule in civilised company used
to be that you didn't discuss religion or politics over the dinner table.
That now has to be extended [again, in civilised company] to gender, and
no doubt other contentious topics of the day/week/.../decade. People try
to argue logically about them, but in the present state of society they
have differing views and are too often incapable of seeing the PoV of the
other people round the table. It's worse, BTW, if they all agree; then
they don't even hear the /PoV/ of others [cf the "Westminster Bubble"].

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about historical research rather than
relaxed after dinner conversation among gentlemen!

[Andy Walker]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Andy Walker

Post by Roger Hayter
Andy why would one want to discuss historical society without "getting
involved" with feminism?

Because the "Women's Lib" aspects take over the debate and, IME,
generate much more heat than light. The rule in civilised company used
to be that you didn't discuss religion or politics over the dinner table.

[...]

Post by Roger Hayter
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about historical research rather than
relaxed after dinner conversation among gentlemen!

Well, (a) the word used was "discuss" rather than "research";
(b) I'm always relaxed about such things; and (c) I don't know whether
you and others here are gentlemen [or ladies], but it seems prudent to
assume that you are, unless and until proven otherwise. So after-dinner
rules seem, at least arguably, normally to apply here. YMMV.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Andy Walker

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Andy Walker

Post by Roger Hayter
Andy why would one want to discuss historical society without "getting
involved" with feminism?

Because the "Women's Lib" aspects take over the debate and, IME,
generate much more heat than light. The rule in civilised company used
to be that you didn't discuss religion or politics over the dinner table.

[...]

Post by Roger Hayter
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about historical research rather than
relaxed after dinner conversation among gentlemen!

Well, (a) the word used was "discuss" rather than "research";
(b) I'm always relaxed about such things; and (c) I don't know whether
you and others here are gentlemen [or ladies], but it seems prudent to
assume that you are, unless and until proven otherwise. So after-dinner
rules seem, at least arguably, normally to apply here. YMMV.

Well, to be fair, you did mention the contradiction between the possibilities
of an strident failure to be objective in one's disagreement versus a
conventional agreed view that is objectively wrong. And I agree that
recreational discussion has different rules from scholarly debate.

So I suppose we agree really. Just perhaps differ in which group we would like
to be a part of.

[JNugent]

[...]

Post by JNugent

Post by Max Demian
Misogyny is baked into the relation between the sexes. Probably
biological if you think about it.

Interesting.
It raises the question of nature v. nurture.
If there were some human societies wherein females were the dominant
sex* in the way that males are in any country one can think of, that
would be the first glimmerings of a case for the "nurture" argument.

    Somewhat serendipitously, Janina Ramirez's "Raiders of the Lost
Past" [BBC4 yesterday, Sept 28th] dealt with the discovery of Chatalhoyuk,
the oldest known city [founded ~9K years ago].  According to JR, the city
treated the sexes equally, which, if true, would at least be an example of
a place where males weren't dominant, and a counter-example to "baked in"
misogyny.
    Robert Graves's book "The Greek Myths" proposed that the myths are
best explained as describing a switch in ancient times from matriarchy to
patriarchy.  But I suspect that his theory is nowadays in disrepute.
    Meanwhile, Wiki, at
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#History_and_distribution
lists a number of modern [and ancient] societies alleged to be matriarchal,
but they all seem to be somewhat vague and contentious.  It seems to be a
very difficult subject to discuss without getting involved with "Women's
Lib" and its ideology.

Exactly so.

To qualify as an historical example of females being the dominant sex
(as mooted in my post above), the relevant society would have to had an
exclusively female governing cadre with inheritance of power passing
down the female line, an exclusively female-controlled economic and
academic system and an exclusively female warrior class.

Only then would they be an analogue for a society wherein males are
dominant.

[Andy Walker]

[...]

Post by JNugent

     Meanwhile, Wiki, at
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#History_and_distribution
lists a number of modern [and ancient] societies alleged to be matriarchal,
but they all seem to be somewhat vague and contentious.  It seems to be a
very difficult subject to discuss without getting involved with "Women's
Lib" and its ideology.

Exactly so.
To qualify as an historical example of females being the dominant> sex (as mooted in my post above), the relevant society would have to
had an exclusively female governing cadre with inheritance of power
passing down the female line, an exclusively female-controlled
economic and academic system and an exclusively female warrior
class.
Only then would they be an analogue for a society wherein males are
dominant.

Whoa! That's going too far. There's no more need for these things
to be /exclusively/ female than there has been in male-dominant societies
for them to be exclusively male. An effective majority suffices. Given
the actual power structures in [esp] modern societies, "effective majority"
often means little more than a small number of key leaders.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Andy Walker
[...]

Post by JNugent

Post by Max Demian
Misogyny is baked into the relation between the sexes. Probably
biological if you think about it.

Interesting.
It raises the question of nature v. nurture.
If there were some human societies wherein females were the dominant
sex* in the way that males are in any country one can think of, that
would be the first glimmerings of a case for the "nurture" argument.

Somewhat serendipitously, Janina Ramirez's "Raiders of the Lost
Past" [BBC4 yesterday, Sept 28th] dealt with the discovery of Chatalhoyuk,
the oldest known city [founded ~9K years ago]. According to JR, the city
treated the sexes equally, which, if true, would at least be an example of
a place where males weren't dominant, and a counter-example to "baked in"
misogyny.
Robert Graves's book "The Greek Myths" proposed that the myths are
best explained as describing a switch in ancient times from matriarchy to
patriarchy. But I suspect that his theory is nowadays in disrepute.
Meanwhile, Wiki, at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#History_and_distribution
lists a number of modern [and ancient] societies alleged to be matriarchal,
but they all seem to be somewhat vague and contentious. It seems to be a
very difficult subject to discuss without getting involved with "Women's
Lib" and its ideology.

Exactly so.
To qualify as an historical example of females being the dominant sex
(as mooted in my post above), the relevant society would have to had an
exclusively female governing cadre with inheritance of power passing
down the female line, an exclusively female-controlled economic and
academic system and an exclusively female warrior class.
Only then would they be an analogue for a society wherein males are
dominant.

I think that is unreasonable. Can you name an indubitably patriarchal society
that had no women of influence operating in it? Even the top Taliban wives may
have more influence than we know. And Victorian society was pretty patriarchal
despite the eponymous woman holding considerable power and influence at the
nominal apex of it.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
That's what I said. "Dazzled by his eminence".

Which isn't true. Has nobody ever offered you a job that you thought you
were very lucky to be offered? I don't think you would be "dazzled by
the eminence" of the elderly man who makes the offer. You would, I
think, see it as an important foothold which might lead to greater
responsibilities and a greater salary.

Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Misogyny is baked into the relation between the sexes. Probably
biological if you think about it.

If you mean it is genetically inherent and unalterable then I really don't
believe that is true. If you are joking then I think it is a distasteful joke.

[Max Demian]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Max Demian

Post by Roger Hayter
Isn't supposing that female employees are "dazzled by the eminence" of their
rich, elderly employer faintly misogynistic?

Misogyny is baked into the relation between the sexes. Probably
biological if you think about it.

If you mean it is genetically inherent and unalterable then I really don't
believe that is true. If you are joking then I think it is a distasteful joke.

Do you mean what transexuals and their advocates believe?

[Max Demian]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts.  R. v Linekar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Linekar

That's absurd. Her only loss was £25. It's part of the fetishisation of
sex. Also, forced rape should be regarded as a species of assault, with
pregnancy/STI (or the chance of either) being aggravating factors.

The idea that sex is special is so old-fashioned; redolent of
patriarchal ideas of a woman's virtue belonging to her father and later
her husband.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Linekar
That's absurd. Her only loss was £25. It's part of the fetishisation of
sex. Also, forced rape should be regarded as a species of assault, with
pregnancy/STI (or the chance of either) being aggravating factors.
The idea that sex is special is so old-fashioned; redolent of
patriarchal ideas of a woman's virtue belonging to her father and later
her husband.

Men are also raped. It often has a rather more severe and long lasting effect
on them than losing loose change.

Perhaps voluntary sex is not particularly special. But bodily integrity and
agency goes to the core of an individual's being. It is odd that you should
seek to conflate the two.

[Max Demian]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts. R. v Linekar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Linekar
That's absurd. Her only loss was £25. It's part of the fetishisation of
sex. Also, forced rape should be regarded as a species of assault, with
pregnancy/STI (or the chance of either) being aggravating factors.
The idea that sex is special is so old-fashioned; redolent of
patriarchal ideas of a woman's virtue belonging to her father and later
her husband.

Men are also raped. It often has a rather more severe and long lasting effect
on them than losing loose change.
Perhaps voluntary sex is not particularly special. But bodily integrity and
agency goes to the core of an individual's being. It is odd that you should
seek to conflate the two.

Non-sexual injuries can be a lot worse than rape; blinding for example,
abdominal injuries that require colectomy, or result in paraplegia or
tetraplegia. Or, indeed, castration. Rape may just damage one's self esteem.

[The Todal]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts.  R. v Linekar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Linekar
That's absurd. Her only loss was £25. It's part of the fetishisation of
sex. Also, forced rape should be regarded as a species of assault, with
pregnancy/STI (or the chance of either) being aggravating factors.
The idea that sex is special is so old-fashioned; redolent of
patriarchal ideas of a woman's virtue belonging to her father and later
her husband.

Men are also raped. It often has a rather more severe and long lasting effect
on them than losing loose change.
Perhaps voluntary sex is not particularly special. But bodily
integrity and
agency goes to the core of an individual's being. It is odd that you should
seek to conflate the two.

Non-sexual injuries can be a lot worse than rape; blinding for example,
abdominal injuries that require colectomy, or result in paraplegia or
tetraplegia. Or, indeed, castration. Rape may just damage one's self esteem.

You say "just" damage.

Rape can result in the victim never being able to enjoy sexual
relationships again, and losing any sense of self-esteem, and in some
cases becoming suicidal.

[The Todal]

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Max Demian

Post by The Todal

Post by Max Demian
Reminds me of the joke about the prostitute who claimed to have been
raped when the cheque bounced.
Some people never learn.

It isn't a joke. The prostitute who claimed to have been raped when she
wasn't paid, was a real case in our courts.  R. v Linekar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Linekar
That's absurd. Her only loss was £25. It's part of the fetishisation of
sex. Also, forced rape should be regarded as a species of assault, with
pregnancy/STI (or the chance of either) being aggravating factors.
The idea that sex is special is so old-fashioned; redolent of
patriarchal ideas of a woman's virtue belonging to her father and later
her husband.

Men are also raped. It often has a rather more severe and long lasting effect
on them than losing loose change.
Perhaps voluntary sex is not particularly special. But bodily integrity and
agency goes to the core of an individual's being. It is odd that you should
seek to conflate the two.

Non-sexual injuries can be a lot worse than rape; blinding for
example, abdominal injuries that require colectomy, or result in
paraplegia or tetraplegia. Or, indeed, castration. Rape may just
damage one's self esteem.

You say "just" damage.
Rape can result in the victim never being able to enjoy sexual
relationships again, and losing any sense of self-esteem, and in some
cases becoming suicidal.

In the Times today, a report about how a successful NHS surgeon sexually
harassed and intimidated his more junior female surgeon colleagues. It
is very informative about the effect on them for the rest of their careers.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/surgeon-preyed-female-colleagues-even-theatre-rwbcclt36

quotes...

James Gilbert, a renowned transplant surgeon, took advantage of his
position as an educational supervisor to grab and grope junior
colleagues and bombard female trainees with sexual innuendo — including
in the middle of operations — at the prestigious Oxford Transplant Centre.

“He took something sacrosanct and ruined it,” one of his victims told
me. “It’s hard to articulate what being in theatre means. For some
surgeons, it’s almost a place of meditation, where you regenerate
yourself. It’s a bit like a church. There are certain behaviours that
just don’t happen. The environment of an operating theatre is precious
and James Gilbert destroyed that. All the safety was gone in a moment.
It was a massive breach and corruption of everything I’d ever known.”
“It’s like the Catholic church and paedophiles,” one of the surgeons
says. “There was a conspiracy of silence”

Last month the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), the
regulatory body, ruled that Gilbert’s fitness to practise as a doctor
was “impaired” after finding that he had touched women “inappropriately”
without their consent and created “an intimidating, hostile, degrading,
humiliating or offensive environment” for female surgeons. During the
hearings the father of two stated that he “never had any desire” to
touch anyone sexually in the workplace and said his only thoughts of sex
were “exclusively at home with my wife of 26 years”. But the panel
determined that his actions between 2009 and 2022 were “sexually
motivated” and “an abuse” of his senior position. He had also made
racist remarks about patients and staff.

Yet Gilbert, 47, was suspended for just eight months and could
potentially be back in the operating theatre next spring. The General
Medical Council is appealing and calling for him to be erased from the
doctors’ register.

What emerged was a pattern of predatory behaviour stretching back over
many years that was initially covered up by the NHS. The women spoke of
a culture of denial and a hierarchical structure that prevented the
truth coming out. This is a story of systemic failure as well as
individual wrongdoing.

“It’s like the Catholic church and paedophiles,” one of the surgeons
says. “Powerful institutions and powerful individuals protecting each
other. There was a conspiracy of silence.”

“You hear stories about people being groped on the Underground. If that
were to happen, even then it takes a lot of guts to stop the whole Tube
and say something. But this is a live operation with an anaesthetist and
often a patient awake. You don’t want to alarm the patient. You don’t
want to stop the operation. You don’t want to disrupt the whole theatre
team to focus on the sexually inappropriate thing that’s just happened.”

[Jethro_uk]

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said to
protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.

It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault (which is a criminal act) but you can happily
be held to a consent to pervert the course of justice in the form of an
NDA.

Tells you all you need to know about who is paying for the laws
protection. And it ain't the little person.

[Max Demian]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said to
protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.

Eventually, when a "woman" boxer kills a female boxer in the ring, we'll
see this tested.

But my point remains. How can an NDA be used to override a criminal
investigation ? Are there NDAs that prohibit the very mention of their
existence ?

"Well, officer, I'd love to tell you all about those missing hitch
hikers, but unfortunately for reasons you can't examine in court, I
can't".

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
But my point remains. How can an NDA be used to override a criminal
investigation ? Are there NDAs that prohibit the very mention of their
existence ?
"Well, officer, I'd love to tell you all about those missing hitch
hikers, but unfortunately for reasons you can't examine in court, I
can't".

An NDA can't override the legal obligation to tell "the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth" when being questioned under oath. They also
can't override a person's legal right to report wrongdoing in the public
interest (aka whistleblowing). And they can't prvent someone taking a case
to an employment tribunal.

More generally, a contract which requires either party to knowingly act
unlawfully is always unenforceable. And an NDA is a contract. So if an NDA
conflicts with a legal obligation of disclosure (eg, under FOI/SAR, or a
neighbour dispute when selling a property, or the money laundering
regulations, or a mandatory reporting requirement in a regulated occupation
or profession), then the NDA is unenforceable insofar as that information is
concerned.

Mark

[The Todal]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk
But my point remains. How can an NDA be used to override a criminal
investigation ? Are there NDAs that prohibit the very mention of their
existence ?
"Well, officer, I'd love to tell you all about those missing hitch
hikers, but unfortunately for reasons you can't examine in court, I
can't".

An NDA can't override the legal obligation to tell "the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth" when being questioned under oath. They also
can't override a person's legal right to report wrongdoing in the public
interest (aka whistleblowing). And they can't prvent someone taking a case
to an employment tribunal.
More generally, a contract which requires either party to knowingly act
unlawfully is always unenforceable. And an NDA is a contract. So if an NDA
conflicts with a legal obligation of disclosure (eg, under FOI/SAR, or a
neighbour dispute when selling a property, or the money laundering
regulations, or a mandatory reporting requirement in a regulated occupation
or profession), then the NDA is unenforceable insofar as that information is
concerned.
Mark

The lawyers acting for the victims have said that in their opinion (and
not as a clear principle of law) the NDAs should not protect Harrods.

I suppose Harrods might argue limitation though. That would be interesting.

see
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/harrods-to-face-civil-claims-over-al-fayed-rape-allegations/5120932.article

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.
Eventually, when a "woman" boxer kills a female boxer in the ring, we'll
see this tested.
But my point remains. How can an NDA be used to override a criminal
investigation ? Are there NDAs that prohibit the very mention of their
existence ?
"Well, officer, I'd love to tell you all about those missing hitch
hikers, but unfortunately for reasons you can't examine in court, I
can't".

I think you are mistaken about the law. You can clearly consent to being
assaulted and to physical violence. I dimly remember team games from school,
and you regularly see similar things on TV, where teams fight for possession
of a token, a ball, and run about with it. The questions that are left are
what degree of harm and for what purposes this is permitted. The formulation
that "you cannot consent to anything illegal" is recursive and unhelpful
because many assaults occasioning actual bodily harm are legal precisely
because the participants have consented, but would not be otherwise. The court
decided in Spanner that the particular potentially permanent genital
mutilations involved, and the particular purpose of homosexual group sex, were
unacceptable together but I am am afraid I have no idea how the law has
developed since. Boxing and Rugby are definitely legal though, despite both
often causing permanent disability or death.

[The Todal]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.
Eventually, when a "woman" boxer kills a female boxer in the ring, we'll
see this tested.
But my point remains. How can an NDA be used to override a criminal
investigation ? Are there NDAs that prohibit the very mention of their
existence ?
"Well, officer, I'd love to tell you all about those missing hitch
hikers, but unfortunately for reasons you can't examine in court, I
can't".

I think you are mistaken about the law. You can clearly consent to being
assaulted and to physical violence. I dimly remember team games from school,
and you regularly see similar things on TV, where teams fight for possession
of a token, a ball, and run about with it. The questions that are left are
what degree of harm and for what purposes this is permitted. The formulation
that "you cannot consent to anything illegal" is recursive and unhelpful
because many assaults occasioning actual bodily harm are legal precisely
because the participants have consented, but would not be otherwise. The court
decided in Spanner that the particular potentially permanent genital
mutilations involved, and the particular purpose of homosexual group sex, were
unacceptable together but I am am afraid I have no idea how the law has
developed since. Boxing and Rugby are definitely legal though, despite both
often causing permanent disability or death.

I think nowadays the main controversy is about strangulation/choking as
part of sexual activity. If the jury is persuaded that it was consensual
or that the defendant believed there was consent then, I think, the jury
would acquit.

But it is rather bizarre that many men believe, maybe on the basis of
porn videos, that choking is implicitly part of the deal. I suppose
these things aren't always negotiated in advance, unless one party has
had a particularly unpleasant experience with other partners and wants
to make his/her preference very clear.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.

What Spanner established was that you can consent to ABH, but not GBH. All
contact sports require consent to, at least potentially, ABH - that is,
possible cuts, bruising, etc - but there are no sports where the rules
permit competitors to deliberately or recklessly inflict GBH on an opponent.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 23 Sep 2024 at 15:24:35 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.

What Spanner established was that you can consent to ABH, but not GBH. All
contact sports require consent to, at least potentially, ABH - that is,
possible cuts, bruising, etc - but there are no sports where the rules
permit competitors to deliberately or recklessly inflict GBH on an opponent.
Mark

To be honest, the average doctor would dispute that about boxing. As far as
Rugby football is concerned, the average doctor plays this game, otherwise
they would probably say the same. Several elements of the game have quite a
high likelihood of GBH, especially when done carelessly in the heat of the
moment. The same for proper football, though the damage is usually more
insidious.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.

What Spanner established was that you can consent to ABH, but not GBH.

... although as we discussed here in 2011, acts are much more likely to
be deemed to be consensual ABH rather than GBH or worse if they involve
heterosexual rather than homosexual sex - even if they result in death
(R v Slingsby, R v Wilson).

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.

What Spanner established was that you can consent to ABH, but not GBH.

... although as we discussed here in 2011, acts are much more likely to
be deemed to be consensual ABH rather than GBH or worse if they involve
heterosexual rather than homosexual sex - even if they result in death
(R v Slingsby, R v Wilson).

If I were on the jury it is unlikely I would accept that the belief of these
self-absorbed young men that choking doesn't inevitably kill after a few
minutes was a reasonable one to hold. It is a source of amazement that they
don't realise that, like most film violence, the violent choking in
pornographic films is very likely to be simulated. Do they believe that in war
or police films the sets are littered with shooting victims after each take?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge
What Spanner established was that you can consent to ABH, but not GBH.

... although as we discussed here in 2011, acts are much more likely to
be deemed to be consensual ABH rather than GBH or worse if they involve
heterosexual rather than homosexual sex - even if they result in death
(R v Slingsby, R v Wilson).

If I were on the jury it is unlikely I would accept that the belief of
these self-absorbed young men that choking doesn't inevitably kill
after a few minutes was a reasonable one to hold. It is a source of
amazement that they don't realise that, like most film violence, the
violent choking in pornographic films is very likely to be simulated.
Do they believe that in war or police films the sets are littered with
shooting victims after each take?

What I find interesting about TV/movies is that people get strangled,
they appear to lose consciousness after about ten seconds, then the
purported murderer stops strangling them, and apparently they are now
dead. I wonder if it's an industry-wide decision they've made to not
show people how to strangle people ...

... or maybe it's just a dramatic pacing issue, like never showing
anyone locking their car, ending a phone conversation, or going to
the toilet.

[JNugent]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge
What Spanner established was that you can consent to ABH, but not GBH.

... although as we discussed here in 2011, acts are much more likely to
be deemed to be consensual ABH rather than GBH or worse if they involve
heterosexual rather than homosexual sex - even if they result in death
(R v Slingsby, R v Wilson).

If I were on the jury it is unlikely I would accept that the belief of
these self-absorbed young men that choking doesn't inevitably kill
after a few minutes was a reasonable one to hold. It is a source of
amazement that they don't realise that, like most film violence, the
violent choking in pornographic films is very likely to be simulated.
Do they believe that in war or police films the sets are littered with
shooting victims after each take?

What I find interesting about TV/movies is that people get strangled,
they appear to lose consciousness after about ten seconds, then the
purported murderer stops strangling them, and apparently they are now
dead. I wonder if it's an industry-wide decision they've made to not
show people how to strangle people ...
... or maybe it's just a dramatic pacing issue, like never showing
anyone locking their car, ending a phone conversation, or going to
the toilet...

...or properly filling a tea or coffee cup. Or, for that matter, not
wasting time looking for a parking space (there's always a spot right
outside where they want to go).

[Adam Funk]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.

What Spanner established was that you can consent to ABH, but not GBH.

... although as we discussed here in 2011, acts are much more likely to
be deemed to be consensual ABH rather than GBH or worse if they involve
heterosexual rather than homosexual sex - even if they result in death
(R v Slingsby, R v Wilson).

If I were on the jury it is unlikely I would accept that the belief of these
self-absorbed young men that choking doesn't inevitably kill after a few
minutes was a reasonable one to hold. It is a source of amazement that they
don't realise that, like most film violence, the violent choking in
pornographic films is very likely to be simulated. Do they believe that in war
or police films the sets are littered with shooting victims after each take?

Choking is harmful even if at the time it appears to "done correctly".

But there are numerous other risks, including long-term changes in
the brain that can occur whether or not the person being choked
remains conscious, as well as miscarriage, thyroid injuries and
short-term impacts including vomiting and loss of bowel control.
...
Prof Heather Douglas, a domestic violence expert from the
University of Melbourne school of law, who co-authored the
Australian prevalence study, points to a study by researchers at
Indiana University that discovered neurological changes among women
who had experienced sexual strangulation, finding “preliminary
associations with altered working memory function and worse mental
health”.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/sep/02/i-think-its-natural-why-has-sexual-choking-become-so-prevalent-among-young-people

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.

What Spanner established was that you can consent to ABH, but not GBH.

... although as we discussed here in 2011, acts are much more likely to
be deemed to be consensual ABH rather than GBH or worse if they involve
heterosexual rather than homosexual sex - even if they result in death
(R v Slingsby, R v Wilson).

R v Slingsby is a bit different in that the internal damage from the
ring was very stupid rather than deliberate --- IMO he should have
been convicted of negligent homicide..

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.

What Spanner established was that you can consent to ABH, but not GBH.

... although as we discussed here in 2011, acts are much more likely to
be deemed to be consensual ABH rather than GBH or worse if they involve
heterosexual rather than homosexual sex - even if they result in death
(R v Slingsby, R v Wilson).

R v Slingsby is a bit different in that the internal damage from the
ring was very stupid rather than deliberate --- IMO he should have
been convicted of negligent homicide..

Yes, but that's my point - I bet it would have been treated differently
if it had been homosexual sex rather than heterosexual.

Another difference is that in the homosexual cases, the "victims" were
also prosecuted, for conspiring to assault themselves! This did not
happen in the heterosexual cases.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.

What Spanner established was that you can consent to ABH, but not GBH.

... although as we discussed here in 2011, acts are much more likely to
be deemed to be consensual ABH rather than GBH or worse if they involve
heterosexual rather than homosexual sex - even if they result in death
(R v Slingsby, R v Wilson).

R v Slingsby is a bit different in that the internal damage from the
ring was very stupid rather than deliberate --- IMO he should have
been convicted of negligent homicide..

Yes, but that's my point - I bet it would have been treated differently
if it had been homosexual sex rather than heterosexual.
Another difference is that in the homosexual cases, the "victims" were
also prosecuted, for conspiring to assault themselves! This did not
happen in the heterosexual cases.

Sorry, I just meant that it was different in that the damage was not
deliberate.

I suspect you're probably right, but are there any "other things being
equal" sets of cases to compare? (The damage in R v Wilson was
substantially less; it involved only two people with no aim of
recruiting others.)

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.

There's some kind of historical exception for boxing under Queensberry
or similar rules. (ISTR that old-fashioned boxing was considered more
likely to result in public disorder.)

Post by Jethro_uk
Eventually, when a "woman" boxer kills a female boxer in the ring, we'll
see this tested.

Possibly.

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.
Eventually, when a "woman" boxer kills a female boxer in the ring, we'll
see this tested.

What about a doctor or practise nurse injecting a patient?

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.
Eventually, when a "woman" boxer kills a female boxer in the ring, we'll
see this tested.

What about a doctor or practise nurse injecting a patient?

Injecting a patient without obtaining consent can be assault. Obviously
conducting an examination without consent (eg a doctor doing a breast
examination, especially when it isn't related to the patient's symptoms)
will be an assault.

A surgeon burning his initials on the transplanted liver of a patient
was held to have assaulted that patient even though it didn't cause any
harm to that patient.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.
Eventually, when a "woman" boxer kills a female boxer in the ring, we'll
see this tested.

What about a doctor or practise nurse injecting a patient?

Injecting a patient without obtaining consent can be assault.

Quite so.

That's why I posed the question.

Post by The Todal
Obviously
conducting an examination without consent (eg a doctor doing a breast
examination, especially when it isn't related to the patient's symptoms)
will be an assault.
A surgeon burning his initials on the transplanted liver of a patient
was held to have assaulted that patient even though it didn't cause any
harm to that patient.

[The Todal]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Max Demian

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said
to protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

NDAs should not be able to override criminal investigations.
It's interesting that you are explicitly forbidden in English Law to be
able to consent to assault

Boxers do it all the time.

Yes, but is it "legal" ? It is an established maxim (operation spanner)
that you cannot consent to an illegal act. Regardless of what custom and
practice may dictate.
Eventually, when a "woman" boxer kills a female boxer in the ring, we'll
see this tested.

How would that work?

You are presumably alluding to transgender female boxers or boxers who
are female but with a high testosterone level.

But that doesn't render such boxers more likely to kill other boxers.
Maybe more likely to win a boxing bout. And it is inconceivable that any
boxer would face prosecution for assault or manslaughter unless perhaps
it was a street fight rather than one in a boxing ring with an audience.

Any boxer risks dying in the ring through a brain bleed or other form of
brain damage and it is facile to claim that it is the fault of an
opponent who packed a harder punch. In fact arguably the quicker the
victory, the less physical damage.

From a medical article:

Research published by Jordan et al observed that approximately 20% of
professional boxers develop a chronic traumatic brain injury (CTBI)
during their careers, and up to 40% of retired professional boxers were
diagnosed with symptoms of chronic brain injury (CBI). Arguably,
boxing's most famous practitioner, Muhammad Ali, is the most prominent
example of an individual with a boxing-related neurological injury.
According to Baird et al, between 1950 and 2007, there have been 339
deaths in professional boxing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10597432/
Published 2023x§x§

[RJH]

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said to
protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

If the dispute is around the allegation of sexual harassment?

For example, the victim alleges sexual harassment, the perpetrator admits
using at best insensitive language. The employer finds that the case of sexual
harassment was unproven, but accepts vicarious liability for the victim's
distress. The perpetrator is sent on equal opportunities training. A severance
agreement follows, as the relationship between employer/employee sours.

Would an NDA be appropriate?

[The Todal]

Post by RJH

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said to
protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

If the dispute is around the allegation of sexual harassment?
For example, the victim alleges sexual harassment, the perpetrator admits
using at best insensitive language. The employer finds that the case of sexual
harassment was unproven, but accepts vicarious liability for the victim's
distress. The perpetrator is sent on equal opportunities training. A severance
agreement follows, as the relationship between employer/employee sours.
Would an NDA be appropriate?

It would be usual. Provided both sides agree. The morality of a legal
adviser recommending the claimant to sign, is a matter for debate. Sign
if you're happy with it, yes. But not "sign because that's how these
things are always done".

[Roger Hayter]

Post by RJH

Post by The Todal
An NDA is quite common in employment disputes because it can be said to
protect the reputation of both sides - the claimant will not be
tarnished with the reputation of being a troublemaker at work. But
although that's fine for some types of employment dispute, rape and
sexual assault should not be the subject of an NDA no matter how big a
cheque is being waved at the claimant.

If the dispute is around the allegation of sexual harassment?
For example, the victim alleges sexual harassment, the perpetrator admits
using at best insensitive language. The employer finds that the case of sexual
harassment was unproven, but accepts vicarious liability for the victim's
distress. The perpetrator is sent on equal opportunities training. A severance
agreement follows, as the relationship between employer/employee sours.
Would an NDA be appropriate?

I think not, in the public interest.

[The Todal]

Post by Mark Goodge
Mohamed Al Fayed is now beyond both the risk of legal action and the ability
to be defamed, so I can safely start by saying that the various allegations
levelled against him are entirely credible and I have no reason to doubt
that he was, in fact, a serial sexual abuser and rapist on an industrial
scale.
However, I'm struggling to see how any enforceable liability attaches to
Harrods Ltd, Harrods (UK) Limited, Harrods Holdings Limited, QH
Participations Limited, Harrods Group (Holding) Limited or Qatar Investment
Authority (from start to finish, the current ownership chain of the premises
in Brompton Road, Knightsbridge). The fact that Fayed undoubtedly utilised
his position as the ultimate owner of the shop in order to gain access to
the staff does not, surely, make the company responsible.
A company can, in some circumstances, be vicariously liable for the unlawful
or abusive actions of its staff if it is (or should be) aware of them but
has taken no action to discipline the staff member or prevent the abuse. But
Fayed was not a staff member. He was the owner. There was never anyone at
any level in any of the companies which form part of the Harrods empire who
had any authority over Fayed. Individually, some of his employees might be
liable for turning a blind eye in order to keep their jobs. But the idea
that there is some kind of corporate liability seems to me to be implausible
in the extreme. The company was the vehicle of its owner. You don't sue a
car for being used in a ram raid.
For avoidance of doubt, I agree that there may be some moral liability (and,
indeed, the current owners of the company have set up a compensation scheme
for Fayed's victims, which I think is the right thing for them to do). But
lawyers representing some of the victims appear to be asserting that this
isn't enough, and that there is some enforceable corporate legal liability.
Which I can't see any basis for.
Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?
Mark

The main case on the subject is Lister v Hesley Hall. It establishes
that the employer will be liable even if he has no knowledge of the bad
behaviour (or propensity to assault and abuse), if the behaviour is
connected with the person's employment. Harrods have apparently made
payments to some claimants so it seems they did not think it worth
arguing that a boss who sexually abuses employees is behaving wholly
outside the employer/employee relationship. It amounts to workplace
bullying taken to a more extreme level.

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/22.html

quotes

The employers accept that, unbeknown to them, the warden systematically
sexually abused the appellants in Axeholme House. The sexual abuse took
the form of mutual masturbation, oral sex and sometimes buggery. The
sexual abuse was preceded by "grooming" being conduct on the part of the
warden to establish control over the appellants. It involved unwarranted
gifts, trips alone with the boys, undeserved leniency, allowing the
watching of violent and X-rated videos, and so forth. What may initially
have been regarded as signs of a relaxed approach to discipline
gradually developed into blatant sexual abuse. Neither of the appellants
made any complaint at the time. In 1982 the warden and his wife left the
employ of the respondents. In the early 1990s a police investigation led
to criminal charges in the Crown Court. Grain was sentenced to seven
years' imprisonment for multiple offences involving sexual abuse.

It becomes possible to consider the question of vicarious liability on
the basis that the employer undertook to care for the boys through the
services of the warden and that there is a very close connection between
the torts of the warden and his employment. After all, they were
committed in the time and on the premises of the employers while the
warden was also busy caring for the children.

The question is whether the warden's torts were so closely connected
with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers
vicariously liable. On the facts of the case the answer is yes. After
all, the sexual abuse was inextricably interwoven with the carrying out
by the warden of his duties in Axeholme House. Matters of degree arise.
But the present cases clearly fall on the side of vicarious liability.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Goodge
Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?

The main case on the subject is Lister v Hesley Hall. It establishes
that the employer will be liable even if he has no knowledge of the bad
behaviour (or propensity to assault and abuse), if the behaviour is
connected with the person's employment. Harrods have apparently made
payments to some claimants so it seems they did not think it worth
arguing that a boss who sexually abuses employees is behaving wholly
outside the employer/employee relationship. It amounts to workplace
bullying taken to a more extreme level.
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/22.html

Yes, but there's a significant difference there. In Lister v Hesley Hall,
the abuse was perpetrated by an employee of Axeholme House. So the principle
that an employer can be responsible for the actions of its employees is
fairly easily applied here.

But Al Fayed was never an employee of Harrods. Not even a senior employee.
It's arguable that Harrods, as a corporate entity, is among his victims,
since he has caused the company reputational damage.

As I said, I don't disagree with the principle that the current owners of
Harrods have some moral obligation towards Al Fayed's victims. And they do
seem to have accepted that. But I'm less sure that they have any legal
responsibility that will stand up in court.

In reality, I expect they'll settle out of court anyway, so it will never be
put to the test.

Mark

[The Todal]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Goodge
Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?

The main case on the subject is Lister v Hesley Hall. It establishes
that the employer will be liable even if he has no knowledge of the bad
behaviour (or propensity to assault and abuse), if the behaviour is
connected with the person's employment. Harrods have apparently made
payments to some claimants so it seems they did not think it worth
arguing that a boss who sexually abuses employees is behaving wholly
outside the employer/employee relationship. It amounts to workplace
bullying taken to a more extreme level.
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/22.html

Yes, but there's a significant difference there. In Lister v Hesley Hall,
the abuse was perpetrated by an employee of Axeholme House. So the principle
that an employer can be responsible for the actions of its employees is
fairly easily applied here.
But Al Fayed was never an employee of Harrods. Not even a senior employee.
It's arguable that Harrods, as a corporate entity, is among his victims,
since he has caused the company reputational damage.

I think actually his status was Owner, based on one transcript of a
judgment that is in the public domain.

He presumably held himself out as the employer of these women, without
anyone dissenting. And all his acts would have been on behalf of Harrods.

I don't see any difficulty.

But plainly there are other strands to the claim - the fact that
employees of Harrods such as HR staff, security staff, managers etc
turned a blind eye and colluded in the assaults. So obviously Harrods is
vicariously liable for the misfeasance of those staff.

Post by Mark Goodge
As I said, I don't disagree with the principle that the current owners of
Harrods have some moral obligation towards Al Fayed's victims. And they do
seem to have accepted that. But I'm less sure that they have any legal
responsibility that will stand up in court.
In reality, I expect they'll settle out of court anyway, so it will never be
put to the test.
Mark

[billy bookcase]

Post by Mark Goodge
Mohamed Al Fayed is now beyond both the risk of legal action and the ability
to be defamed, so I can safely start by saying that the various allegations
levelled against him are entirely credible and I have no reason to doubt
that he was, in fact, a serial sexual abuser and rapist on an industrial
scale.
However, I'm struggling to see how any enforceable liability attaches to
Harrods Ltd, Harrods (UK) Limited, Harrods Holdings Limited, QH
Participations Limited, Harrods Group (Holding) Limited or Qatar Investment
Authority (from start to finish, the current ownership chain of the premises
in Brompton Road, Knightsbridge). The fact that Fayed undoubtedly utilised
his position as the ultimate owner of the shop in order to gain access to
the staff does not, surely, make the company responsible.
A company can, in some circumstances, be vicariously liable for the unlawful
or abusive actions of its staff if it is (or should be) aware of them but
has taken no action to discipline the staff member or prevent the abuse. But
Fayed was not a staff member. He was the owner. There was never anyone at
any level in any of the companies which form part of the Harrods empire who
had any authority over Fayed. Individually, some of his employees might be
liable for turning a blind eye in order to keep their jobs. But the idea
that there is some kind of corporate liability seems to me to be implausible
in the extreme. The company was the vehicle of its owner. You don't sue a
car for being used in a ram raid.
For avoidance of doubt, I agree that there may be some moral liability (and,
indeed, the current owners of the company have set up a compensation scheme
for Fayed's victims, which I think is the right thing for them to do). But
lawyers representing some of the victims appear to be asserting that this
isn't enough, and that there is some enforceable corporate legal liability.
Which I can't see any basis for.
Can someone explain why they're right, and I'm wrong? Or am I right?
Mark

There is possibly a difference, as against Savile as my be cited in
later posts. Not only was Savile never charged withn any offence but
AFAIAA no victims were ever paid-off so as to supreess allegations
against him during his lifetime.

Whereas while again Fayed was never charged with any offence -
there is copious evidence of his having paid victims off. As
possibly featured in a least two previous TV programmes about
him made during his lifetime.


bb