He had hitherto managed to stifle the case… Accused of racism and sexual harassment, and the identity of Sir Philip Green, a billionaire at the head of an empire of the great distribution and the mode, has been revealed in full house of Lords.

” READ ALSO – #MeToo has he really transformed the relationships between man and woman in the office?

Thursday, October 25, Peter Hain, a british member of parliament, said he had been approached by a person “closely involved” in the case. The lord felt that it was his “duty” and “in the public interest” to reveal the identity of the respondent, while Philip Green, boss of Topshop, has “spent substantial sums to hide the truth about repeated acts of sexual harassment, racism and harassment”.

” READ ALSO – Philip Green, the king of Topshop

the boss of The group Arcadia has immediately rejected these accusations: “I deny categorically the allegations suggesting that I am guilty of illegal behaviour”, he said in a statement. “Arcadia and I take very seriously the accusations and complaints of employees, which are, where appropriate, thoroughly examined”, he added.

If these allegations are proven, the members of the parliament have requested that the business man is stripped of his knighthood.

Imperative of silence

This case should have been revealed in a survey of eight months, the conservative daily the Daily Telegraph. But british justice has delivered an “imperative of silence” against the newspaper believed that the information obtained by the journalists came including confidentiality agreements signed by five employees with the business man, which gave rise to payments of money to be “substantial” and taking precedence over the freedom to inform.

“The scandal british #MeToo which may not be revealed”, then returned Wednesday to the daily, deploring to be prevented to reveal the identity of the billionaire. According to the Telegraph , Philip Green reportedly spent around 500,000 pounds (about 566.000 euro) to be represented by a team of seven lawyers from the prestigious firm of london-based Schillings.

This imperative of silence, then, has caused outrage in the country, many seeing it as a privilege for the rich to escape a scandal, in the wake of the movement #MeToo. “It seems that our laws allow the rich and powerful to do almost everything that they want, as long as they pay for keeping quiet,” said the mp, labour’s Jess Phillips on Wednesday.

To prove this case, Peter Hain used parliamentary privilege to violate the imperative of silence, decided by the court.

” READ ALSO – A year after the deal Weinstein, what has changed between men and women

The first minister Theresa May pledged on Wednesday to mps to revise the rules surrounding the agreements of non-disclosure in order to prevent the use of “immoral” by some employers. His spokesman specified that these agreements “should never be used to cover a criminal activity”. For its part, the Society of Editors, which represents some 400 members of the media, denounced “an attack against freedom of the press”. “The increasing use of agreements of non-disclosure by the rich and powerful to block the publication of information that they do not wish to see published is a dangerous direction for a free society.”