Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
Was he right to out Sir Philip Green using parliamentary privilege?
Should wealth be able to buy you silence?
Should wealth be able to buy you silence?
Lord Peter Hain...right or wrong?
- Thread starter Bunkermagnet
- Start date
ger147
Tour Winner
No and No. The law is wrong in this case IMO but 2 wrong's don't make a right. Such a blatant abuse of parliamentary privilege is a dangerous road to go down i.e. it could end up being removed.
D
Deleted member 18645
Guest
Hain is a nasty piece of work with a lot of form doing what suits him. Then again so is Green.
Taz
Journeyman Pro
alan johnson got this right on this week last night :
I agree it is a dangerous road to go down but both are perfect examples of everything I hate about the establishment.
PhilTheFragger
Provider of Entertainment for the Golfing Gods 🙄
In my mind there has to be a very good reason why 3 high court judges granted the injunction in the first place.
To ride roughshod over the law using parliamentary privilege is a dangerous precedent,
On another , but linked matter, if Person A makes a payment to person B to keep quiet.
Person B bleats about it years later
Is person A entitled to their money back?
To ride roughshod over the law using parliamentary privilege is a dangerous precedent,
On another , but linked matter, if Person A makes a payment to person B to keep quiet.
Person B bleats about it years later
Is person A entitled to their money back?
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
Hain's principles seem to fit whatever is best for Peter Hain.
Ban the bomb and SA protests to the HOL is quite a dextrous leap.
Sitting on the fence with this one, Green is such a crass operator so, almost anyone who takes him down would get my support.
The pair probably deserve each other.
Ban the bomb and SA protests to the HOL is quite a dextrous leap.
Sitting on the fence with this one, Green is such a crass operator so, almost anyone who takes him down would get my support.
The pair probably deserve each other.
would the judges just be looking at the legal matter of the injunction and its precedence in law rather than what PG has done?
User2021
Challenge Tour Pro
No and no
But I dislike Green with a passion, lots of nasty little rumours for years about him.
But I dislike Green with a passion, lots of nasty little rumours for years about him.
PhilTheFragger
Provider of Entertainment for the Golfing Gods 🙄
Don’t know, that’s why I’m asking.
One thing is sure PG is now as tainted as Harvey W, his reputation is in tatters, but here’s the rub..... He might not actually be guilty of anything, he has been tried by the media, not in a court of law.
What chance of a fair trial now?
Playing devils advocate a bit, but can you see my point?
One thing is sure PG is now as tainted as Harvey W, his reputation is in tatters, but here’s the rub..... He might not actually be guilty of anything, he has been tried by the media, not in a court of law.
What chance of a fair trial now?
Playing devils advocate a bit, but can you see my point?
Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
To my mind, I'm mixed.
It worries me that LPH has usurped the law by using PP, however I dont think that the DT would spend 18 months on an investigation if it wasnt true (they arent a red top afterall, so although I'm not their reader I respect their journalistic integrity) and so because of that I dont think SPG should have been allowed to buy his injuction. Especially since I read theres a 5th lady come forward who hasnt been paid off to stay quiet.
It worries me that LPH has usurped the law by using PP, however I dont think that the DT would spend 18 months on an investigation if it wasnt true (they arent a red top afterall, so although I'm not their reader I respect their journalistic integrity) and so because of that I dont think SPG should have been allowed to buy his injuction. Especially since I read theres a 5th lady come forward who hasnt been paid off to stay quiet.
yes i think that would be why the 3 judges reached that decision..
But lets face it he is a slime ball
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Has Green paid someone to ensure his name isn’t released? Who did he pay
Or is it a case of names not allowed to be released until a court case ?
Whilst Green is quite clearly a toad and has got away with some shocking things in the past if the law meant his name couldn’t be release then some politician shouldn’t be able to go above that
Or is it a case of names not allowed to be released until a court case ?
Whilst Green is quite clearly a toad and has got away with some shocking things in the past if the law meant his name couldn’t be release then some politician shouldn’t be able to go above that
sev112
Tour Winner
NDAs are a common method that employers use in resolving complex disputes between staff and other staff which have no obvious further way to resolution.
Some of these certainly involve one party stating that they have been harassed and either the other party disagrees or there are limited facts on which to base an employment disciplinary process on.
When all other methods of resolution have been explored, and with legal guidance, often with independent legal advice being paid for by the employer, a compensation agreement is made sometimes with one or more parties leaving the organisation . Compensation payments at that time are drafted with independent legal advice and NDAs are part of that process.
These are common employment practice and have very little to do with rich powerful employer bullying small poor worker. They are often nothing to do with the employer but just a non-resolvable difference between 2 parties.
So NDAs have a common place in employment practice. That they exist does not necessarily imply that an act of sexual assault or harassment , or any other act, has in fact occurred .
I have no idea of what matters the alleged NDAs were related to, not the circumstances however
Some of these certainly involve one party stating that they have been harassed and either the other party disagrees or there are limited facts on which to base an employment disciplinary process on.
When all other methods of resolution have been explored, and with legal guidance, often with independent legal advice being paid for by the employer, a compensation agreement is made sometimes with one or more parties leaving the organisation . Compensation payments at that time are drafted with independent legal advice and NDAs are part of that process.
These are common employment practice and have very little to do with rich powerful employer bullying small poor worker. They are often nothing to do with the employer but just a non-resolvable difference between 2 parties.
So NDAs have a common place in employment practice. That they exist does not necessarily imply that an act of sexual assault or harassment , or any other act, has in fact occurred .
I have no idea of what matters the alleged NDAs were related to, not the circumstances however
NDA/SPG/LPH/HOL/WTF
Can no one just type out the full wording, I'm spending all my time trying to work out what all these acronyms are
Can no one just type out the full wording, I'm spending all my time trying to work out what all these acronyms are
IanM
Journeyman Pro
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,945
- Location
- Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
Judges saw fit to grant an injunction. An MP or sitting Peer should not overrule
If the "chap" in question was of the same political hue as Peter Hain, all other things being equal, would he have done the same? I have no idea, but we shouldnt have to ask the queston.
Even scumbags are entitled to a fair trial! Why should Peter Hain be allowed to interfere with an (almost certainly) upcoming court case? Other folk would be locked up for contempt
If the "chap" in question was of the same political hue as Peter Hain, all other things being equal, would he have done the same? I have no idea, but we shouldnt have to ask the queston.
Even scumbags are entitled to a fair trial! Why should Peter Hain be allowed to interfere with an (almost certainly) upcoming court case? Other folk would be locked up for contempt
Lord Peter Hain is a paid adviser to the legal firm that represented The Telegraph 
Robster59
Tour Rookie
I think Alan Johnson in the clip above got it right.
I don't think anyone was surprised that Green was the one who was named as he seems a nasty piece of work.
But the problem is the use of NDA's, gagging orders and super injunctions is far too prevalent. The rich hide behind the legal wranglings and in instances like this they feel above the law.
I don't think anyone was surprised that Green was the one who was named as he seems a nasty piece of work.
But the problem is the use of NDA's, gagging orders and super injunctions is far too prevalent. The rich hide behind the legal wranglings and in instances like this they feel above the law.
PhilTheFragger
Provider of Entertainment for the Golfing Gods 🙄
Tommy Robinson ( quite rightly imo) was jailed for potentially prejudicing a fair trial in Leeds.
Should Peter Hain be sanctioned for his actions in prejudicing a fair trial ?
Is parliamentary privilege now a dead duck as a result of his statement?
Should Peter Hain be sanctioned for his actions in prejudicing a fair trial ?
Is parliamentary privilege now a dead duck as a result of his statement?
