You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > oh dear
December 14 2018 8.20pm

oh dear

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

 

View Bexley Eagle's Profile Bexley Eagle Flag Bexley Kent 25 Oct 18 6.03pm Send a Private Message to Bexley Eagle Add Bexley Eagle as a friend

That was a top shop

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Cucking Funt's Profile Cucking Funt Flag Back in the jug agane 25 Oct 18 7.51pm Send a Private Message to Cucking Funt Add Cucking Funt as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

That's not the sort of gagging that he likes

I object most strongly to this bullying from HOL Towers.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View becky's Profile becky Flag over the moon 25 Oct 18 10.23pm Send a Private Message to becky Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add becky as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I think Peter Hain is wrong to use Parliamentary privilege to name and shame.

So far Phillip Green, and I dislike the man, has not been investigated, interviewed, charged or found guilty of any sexual crime.

I am not a fan of non disclosure agreements. The Court of Appeal has studied the evidence and has stated that this is a complex case. Some of the "victims" actually agree with Green and don't want this to become public. Others the court states have taken large sums of money so their evidence maybe tainted.

The bottom line is that judges have decided to uphold his privacy after a lengthy review of the evidence. Peter Gain cannot possibly have access to the same level of detail and yet he has decided he knows more about the case than the judiciary.

If Parliament does not like NDA's then pass a law banning them I would probably agree with that. What Hain has done is the moral equivalent of tarring and feathering someone. No matter how despicable a person Green is we are all entitled to justice and so are the victims who don't want this brought into the public arena.

Whilst I agree with what you say, at least having it brought out into the open will save the sort of speculation and rumour-mongering that has forced people like Lord Sugar and Duncan Bannatyne to issue public denials. The tarring and feathering of people unconnected with this is equally unacceptable, surely?

Presumably, the victims in this case will have the right to anonymity that is usually extended, if they wish for it.

 


Orwell's 1984 was a warning,not a manual!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View gambler's Profile gambler Flag Kent 25 Oct 18 10.41pm Send a Private Message to gambler Add gambler as a friend

Do we really think his wife doesn't know that he's got wandering eyes and hands? She will know and she won't care. It's an occupational hazard.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Midlands Eagle's Profile Midlands Eagle Flag 26 Oct 18 6.15am Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by gambler

Do we really think his wife doesn't know that he's got wandering eyes and hands? She will know and she won't care. It's an occupational hazard.

Harvey Weinstein's wife didn't know and she left him when the news broke

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View beagle's Profile beagle Flag pom tiddly om pom pom 26 Oct 18 7.20am Send a Private Message to beagle Add beagle as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I think Peter Hain is wrong to use Parliamentary privilege to name and shame.

So far Phillip Green, and I dislike the man, has not been investigated, interviewed, charged or found guilty of any sexual crime.

I am not a fan of non disclosure agreements. The Court of Appeal has studied the evidence and has stated that this is a complex case. Some of the "victims" actually agree with Green and don't want this to become public. Others the court states have taken large sums of money so their evidence maybe tainted.

The bottom line is that judges have decided to uphold his privacy after a lengthy review of the evidence. Peter Gain cannot possibly have access to the same level of detail and yet he has decided he knows more about the case than the judiciary.

If Parliament does not like NDA's then pass a law banning them I would probably agree with that. What Hain has done is the moral equivalent of tarring and feathering someone. No matter how despicable a person Green is we are all entitled to justice and so are the victims who don't want this brought into the public arena.

NDAs were originally designed to protect companies and their 'trade secrets'. However, that morphed into them being used by the fantastically rich to keep the less well off quiet.

The fact someone may sign an NDA and take a payment, to my mind, holds little significance if the NDA is being used to to cover up an act that is illegal under law. Like, for example, sexual assault.

If someone was being repeated bullied by him in the workplace their seems little recourse for action apart from the HR Dept. Anything legal (if you can afford it) puts them up against, in this case, Greens top notch lawyers. What evidence could you get to support it? So options-wise taking a payment in exchange for an NDA is maybe the only real option.

The fact they signed them doesn't make them complicit in whatever Green is being accused of.

So good for Peter Hain.

 


When the time comes, I want die just like my Dad - at peace and asleep.
Not screaming and terrified.
Like his passengers.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Midlands Eagle's Profile Midlands Eagle Flag 26 Oct 18 7.34am Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by beagle

good for Peter Hain.

He has made a mockery of the appeal court

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 26 Oct 18 8.13am Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

If you're going to put all your assets in your wife's name you should keep your dick in your trousers

Was that a thought for the day? Or written on a shop sandwich board on the pavement or something?

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 26 Oct 18 8.16am Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by DanH

This news has put a right spring in my step.

That Philip’s tempted to stray (for turning), or that his missus may be on the market?

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View beagle's Profile beagle Flag pom tiddly om pom pom 26 Oct 18 8.23am Send a Private Message to beagle Add beagle as a friend

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

He has made a mockery of the appeal court

Agreed. But I think he's made a mockery of the NDA law, not the Court.

And in this case, not a bad thing.

The Appeal court applies the law as it stands.

If this was a case of a NDA being signed to protect, for example, the copyright infringement of the next fashion line then I'd say Hain was 'bang out of order'. But its not. These NDAs protect him from serious, serious allegations.

I maintain that an NDA should not be used to protect those accused of doing something that is currently illegal (like racial abuse for example). What else should an NDA protect a person from? Fraud? Embezzlement? Murder? (ok, Im overdoing it here )

As I say , the appeal court are correct in their application of the law. But I think Hain (as a representative of the body that makes those laws) is, in this case, right to shine a light on the law the Court was applying.

 


When the time comes, I want die just like my Dad - at peace and asleep.
Not screaming and terrified.
Like his passengers.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 26 Oct 18 9.45am Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by beagle

Agreed. But I think he's made a mockery of the NDA law, not the Court.

And in this case, not a bad thing.

The Appeal court applies the law as it stands.

If this was a case of a NDA being signed to protect, for example, the copyright infringement of the next fashion line then I'd say Hain was 'bang out of order'. But its not. These NDAs protect him from serious, serious allegations.

I maintain that an NDA should not be used to protect those accused of doing something that is currently illegal (like racial abuse for example). What else should an NDA protect a person from? Fraud? Embezzlement? Murder? (ok, Im overdoing it here )

As I say , the appeal court are correct in their application of the law. But I think Hain (as a representative of the body that makes those laws) is, in this case, right to shine a light on the law the Court was applying.

An NDA is not binding where it relates to criminal activity.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 26 Oct 18 10.18am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by beagle

NDAs were originally designed to protect companies and their 'trade secrets'. However, that morphed into them being used by the fantastically rich to keep the less well off quiet.

The fact someone may sign an NDA and take a payment, to my mind, holds little significance if the NDA is being used to to cover up an act that is illegal under law. Like, for example, sexual assault.

If someone was being repeated bullied by him in the workplace their seems little recourse for action apart from the HR Dept. Anything legal (if you can afford it) puts them up against, in this case, Greens top notch lawyers. What evidence could you get to support it? So options-wise taking a payment in exchange for an NDA is maybe the only real option.

The fact they signed them doesn't make them complicit in whatever Green is being accused of.

So good for Peter Hain.

A Labour MP has called Hain a hero, I would call him a coward for hiding behind immunity. If he really wanted to make a stand he should have stepped outside Parliament. This smacks of party politics.

I agree with your assessment on what NDA's should be used for however it is for Parliament to make law and the PM has previously indicated that this will be looked at.

The court was at pains to point out that the victims had taken independent legal advice before accepting large sums and that this will impact on their creditability.

The real issue here is that the press feel empowered to name and same any public figure who has allegations thrown against them and don't like it when they can't. As with Cliff Richard and other celebrities falsely accused their names should be private until they are charged by the police.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > oh dear