Green Twit

Peter Hain is under fire from the legal profession for having named Philip Green, the argument being that the courts are the right place to argue the toss. While this argument has validity, the fact remains that Peter Green's use of a court injunction is a defence only available to the wealthy. If you or I were accused of harassment or sexual misconduct, our names would certainly be reported as being accused, presumption of innocence notwithstanding.

Then there's the fact that with an NDA an accusation could never reach court in the first place. That's a misuse of an NDA.

Could it be argued that the damage to a high profile person is greater than for the unwashed? I doubt it, although the fallout and collateral damage could be greater if that person's company, and hence employees, suffer as a consequence of public reaction.

It has been said many times that the presumption of innocence is a myth. While that may be true within the general public, the important factor is that it is maintained within the judicial procedure, which it is. It doesn't really matter what the public think. A judge will direct a jury to make its decision solely on the evidence and to ignore public opinion or the press.

Talking of politicians, I'll bet Trump wishes he could eat his words when he Tweeted that garbage about the pipe bomb plot was a liberal hoax. I hear a hoax hit Florida a few weeks ago - that severe cyclone. Trump really is beyond the pale. Perhaps he'll be a little less Twitter happy now, the twit.