Reading it I think at times of a bloke in the schmutter trade. And then think, nah, there’re clues here that it’s not him. There has been stuff about him and NDAs, yes, but still, not him:
One of Britain’s wealthiest men is under police investigation over allegations of rape and sexual assault, The Times can reveal.
The multimillionaire businessman, whose identity is protected by court orders and who has been referred to as Mr X, agreed financial settlements last year with two former female employees who accused him of assaulting them.
Why not him?
Wide-ranging secrecy orders imposed by a senior High Court judge mean that The Times cannot name the businessman, who has extensive establishment connections,….
Not quite how we would describe that individual, is it, establishment, quite the opposite?
The judge said that the case involved “allegations of sexual offences” against “a public figure with a well-known family name”.
Mr X, who is married with grown-up children, has homes in London, the countryside and overseas.
So, if not him, then who?
Comments closed, obviously.