Sir Philip Green’s performance before a House of Commons committee yesterday told its own story about the way he had run BHS and of that company’s sad denouement. Indeed, on several occasions, committee members – including the chairman – made that very point.
True, he apologised for the impending loss of jobs and took responsibility for the pensions mess, which he promised to sort out. And it may be possible to see his arrogant, patronising, blustering and – granted – occasionally humorous approach as refreshingly straightforward. But the impression made on most observers was that what was on special offer here was cant rather than recant, petulance rather than penitence, self-regard more than self-reproach. Here was a man convinced he was right, rather than contrite.
Members remarked on his combined air of dominance and over-sensitivity. His repeated use of the word “respectfully” indicated its opposite. The arguably endearing Del Boy aspect to his performance – “Right?” – became more like Only Fools and Horse-Trading with his repeated references to various leading businessmen as “the guy”, often as not shifting millions around here and there.
We had to remind ourselves that this was a major high street business involving thousands of jobs and pensions. Committee members felt Sir Philip’s tetchy, impatient and respectfully disrespectful performance offered a worrying clue as to how BHS had been run. Clearly, they said, he did not like being challenged on anything.
Even accepting that style crudely understood – greed is rude – may not necessarily dictate substance, it was worrying to contemplate corporate governance being conducted on these lines. And that’s before mentioning his accusation that one member was staring at him. In truth, the whole nation has been staring open-mouthed.
In terms of substance, we await further details of how the pensions shortfall is to be tackled and commend Sir Philip’s commitment to so doing. His apology? Accepted. His overall behaviour both in business and before Parliament? Unacceptable.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here