Socialite claims she was sexually assaulted at party by millionaire at centre of #MeToo scandal
She said the businessman secretly slid his hand under her dress as he chatted to her and her boyfriend at a party
A WELL-KNOWN socialite who believes she was a victim of the gagging-row tycoon last night accused him of groping her.
In an anonymous first-person account, she said: “He loved that I was scared.”
She claimed the businessman secretly slid his hand under her dress as he chatted to her and her boyfriend at a party.
Writing in , the woman said: “Having his sweaty hand beneath my skirt was repulsive, but it was the power play involved that was the worst thing. He loved that I was scared.
“In fact I’ll bet a lot of the enjoyment for him was knowing that I would be too scared to say anything.
"That, not the handful of flesh, was what he was getting off on. And I still hate that I was too scared to say anything.”
She told her boyfriend that night and he said she should have confronted the tycoon.
But she added: “Like Harvey Weinstein, this wasn’t a man you went up against.”
The Telegraph said because of the injunction against the newspaper, it could not tell her if the man she accuses is the gagging-row tycoon.
Non-disclosure agreements are being used as a weapon by the rich and famous to gag victims and cover up sexual assaults and potentially criminal activity, experts said.
Such NDAs — commonly known as confidentiality or gagging agreements — are legitimately used in business to protect confidential matters like takeovers.
But they are increasingly being employed by celebrities and the super-rich to mask sexual wrongdoing.
Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein allegedly used NDAs to silence women.
The court battle over the publication of the allegations has been going on for months.
In August, a High Court judge refused to grant a gagging order.
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said the information was “clearly capable of significantly contributing to a debate in a democratic society” and “making a contribution to a current debate of general public interest on misconduct in the workplace”.
But the executive and his managers appealed.
On Tuesday the three Appeal Court judges, Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Henderson, ruled in the businessman’s favour.
The multi-millionaire tycoon at the centre of the latest gagging row paid £500,000 to get the order banning the revelation of his alleged bullying, racism and sexual harassment.
Judges granted it after hearing five of his staff got payouts to stay silent.
Rumours online
By Tom Wells
SOCIAL media was last night awash with speculation regarding the identity of the tycoon at the centre of the “British #MeToo” scandal.
In 2011, ex-footballer Ryan Giggs was named online despite winning a super- injunction to hush up a fling.
Other bans are still in force despite their subjects being widely known.
In 2011, a married Premier League star won an injunction after saying he feared “cruel chants” if his affair emerged.
In the same year a married top actor won a gagging order after allegedly paying a woman for sex. Both were widely named on social media.
In June, outgoing Supreme Court judge Lord Mance admitted that internet gossip now rendered many injunctions pointless.
The English and Welsh press would still be banned from saying his name even if he is identified abroad or in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Writer and campaigner Mick Hume said: “It’s going back to a dark age when the rich and powerful could keep scandals secret.
“The consequences of the ruling for UK Press freedom look grim.”
Media lawyer Mark Stephens also criticised the Appeal Court order, saying: “It’s an appalling decision.
“It sends out a message that the rich can buy themselves freedom from scrutiny.”
Judges ruled the signing of the agreements overrode the public interest in exposing the businessman’s “discreditable” behaviour.
The case has been described as “a British #MeToo moment” — a reference to the flood of allegations in America following the revelation of film mogul Harvey Weinstein’s serial sexual harassment.
The identity of the tycoon was the subject of the usual speculation on social media, where injunctions are routinely flouted.
News of the gagging order triggered an angry reaction among politicians of all parties.
Jess Phillips, who chairs the Women’s Parliamentary Labour Party, said: “It cannot be right that the rich can buy silence.”
Tory Bob Seely tweeted: “Concerned about injunctions, used against a free press.
“There’s an argument MPs use Parliamentary privilege to undermine these injunctions on principle, when in the public interest, so their use by the rich and powerful becomes redundant.”
Independent MP Frank Field added: “I would hope that any of the parties who had concerns about this would contact the Women and Equalities Select committee, which is looking into the use of NDAs, as a matter of urgency.”
The executive is represented by London law firm Schillings.
Its lawyers acted for Manchester United legend Ryan Giggs in 2011 to win a super-injunction, which banned reporting of his affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas.
Schillings was also involved in an effort by football superstar Cristiano Ronaldo to gag a former lover.
Three of the five staff members in the current case had made complaints using “internal grievance procedures”. Three later filed employment tribunal claims.
Two of the staff supported the tycoon’s bid for an injunction. Both wanted to preserve anonymity.
The judges said there was no evidence anyone had been pressured into signing the deals.
Each individual had taken independent legal advice.
PM Theresa May refused to comment directly on the case.
But she told the Commons: “Sexual harassment in the workplace is against the law.
“Such abhorrent behaviour should not be tolerated.
“Non-disclosure agreements cannot stop people from whistleblowing but it is clear some employers are using them unethically.”
In March 2011, the RBS bank boss Sir Fred Goodwin gagged The Sun to prevent us running a story about an affair.
But later that month, then Lib Dem MP John Hemming used Parliamentary privilege to reveal how Goodwin had sought an injunction.
Lib Dem peer Lord Stoneham then disclosed in the Lords that Goodwin’s injunction was to stop the reporting of a sexual relationship.
High Court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat later granted a partial lifting of the injunction.
He said Goodwin’s QC had said he “did not wish to persuade the court to continue the anonymity” he had been granted.
Mr Hemming joined those criticising the granting of the tycoon’s injunction.
He said: “When the legal system becomes a tool of the rich it’s very dangerous.
“The counter-argument to this becoming public seems to be that it would render NDAs worthless.
“I would simply say, ‘Would that be such a bad thing?'"
MOST READ IN UK NEWS
- GOT a story? RING The Sun on 0207 782 4104 or WHATSAPP on 07423720250 or EMAIL [email protected]