:metoo: Harvey Weinstein

My issue is that three judges reviewed the evidence and decided that an injunction should be granted, then a member of the house of Lords decided that he disagreed with the courts and that he knew better without sight of all of the evidence, and named Green hiding behind the cover of parliamentary privilege.

There is due process for a reason, it is not for a random member of parliament to run rough shod over. Christ, if he has a problem with the law as it stands. he is one of the best placed people in the country to effect change.

Iā€™m not sure I entirely agree - weā€™ve used NDAā€™s in the past where there was a no fault situation, mainly because it was a quick and easy way of bringing a matter to a close.

Totally agree CBS. Dangerous precedent here, which members of the judiciary have warned about before.

Likewise, I have used NDAs before to secure confidential business data around things like a proposed merger, or a sale of a business. Widely used for this sort of thing.

Quite. The use of NDAā€™s was designed for confidentiality on issues of business sensitivities, no problem with that. But the point May made in the Commons on Wednesday was correct. It appears as if they are now used as effective gagging orders for misbehaviour by the rich and powerful, that may even attract the attention of Inspector Knacker. This is not right and cannot been seen as right in any way, even by the judiciary.

1 Like

ā€œSlime Ballsā€ deserve the due process of law no matter what the people who think heā€™s a ā€œslime ballā€ think.

Itā€™s the cornerstone of British Lawā€¦very simpleā€¦unequivocal.

If the law on NDAā€™s is flawedā€¦it has to be changedā€¦not the overall tenet of British Law.

1 Like

If an NDA is legally binding, then (I assume) it will be covered by Contract and Common Law. If there is a breach of either it is a matter for redress by a civil court, should it get that far. No one is saying redress through civil action cannot be pursued by Green or that Green should be excused from the process of legal redress either. He is perfectly entitled to sue for breach of contract, should he wish to. That is the legal redress and is open to him should it be required.

There is a wider point though, that being the use of NDAā€™s to cover up potentially criminal behaviour that the due process of criminal law should be able to investigate.

Sir Philip Green, Shite of the Realm.

Yes, yes, I know. These NDAā€™ed to fuck charges have not been proven.

I thought he was that after he gutted BHS, tax-free through his Monaco resident missus, sold it for a quid and kinda left it without a pension fund.

The real story is how comes this bad boy has been walking free these last two years. Perhaps this latest round of revelations will prove fruitful.

2 Likes

Iā€™ve signed a few NDAā€™s in my time. Mainly to not disclose a settlement for not taking shite-bag companies to court for fucking up contracts. Pretty sure mine werenā€™t about me being paid off for being touched up by my boss. Worries me that the media assume that NDAs are only used to cover up pay offs for pervs. Hundreds get signed each week (canā€™t verify that obvs) and are a vital business tool. Hain is a cunt for making it seem otherwise (well, thatā€™s my take on it). Keep the law completely separate from Parliament.

Iā€™m quite shocked that anyone in the House of Lords finds a bit of sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying out of the ordinary.

1 Like

Bread and butter to them tbf

Think Hain is in it for self publicity or some purpose- diametrically opposite to what he used his ā€œprivilegeā€ for.

Maybe, but he didnā€™t abuse that ā€œprivilegeā€ to call Corbyn a fucking anti-Semite and not get sued, like Margaret Hodge did.

Hain looks golden by comparison.

Still a fully paid up twat though imho.

Yeah, but why focus on Hain? Why shoot the messenger?

If these allegations are proven, Green will have a lot to answer for.

Cos heā€™s a self serving cunt.

If there is a legal issue then go through the law- donā€™t use parliamentary ā€œprivilegeā€ to do it.

Would you approve if something about you that may, or may not be true was made public in such a way? I suspect you wouldnā€™t but Iā€™d say you are a liar if you said youā€™d be okay with it.

Really canā€™t agree. In this case, the law seems to have been the thing holding discovery up.

Entirely appropriate use of Parliamentary privilege, imo.

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1055906121913905154

1 Like

Tbh itā€™s a difficult one. I think Parliament and the Law are two things that need to be kept separate. Where it becomes acceptable to blur the lines for what appears to be populist Me2 scapegoating is at least dubious or most more worryingly it becomes acceptable because the MSM decides that it is acceptable. Iā€™m not sure you are really getting my concerns here.

1 Like

I have to agree with you that Hain is a self serving cunt, always has been. It would have been fair enough if he had waited until the High Court had ruled as to whether this NDA was appropriate in these circumstances,( which it clearly wasnā€™t, itā€™s not what NDAs were designed for, as you have eloquently explained). If they then still ruled to protect said twat Green, (one of their own), then fair enough. Get stuck in. But Hain has always liked the sound of his own voice, i remember a couple of articles he wrote in the Guardian when Corbyn was being disgracefully labelled an Anti- Semite despite all evidence to the contrary. Adding his voice to those who were desperately trying to undermine him. Hain is a classic example of a self serving politician who runs with the hares and, when it suits him, hunts with the hounds. Made his name as a left wing radical, fighting Apartheid in SA, joined the Liberals, then when he clocked on that they were a waste of space and wouldnā€™t serve his ambitions, joined the Labour Party and landed a safe seat in a traditional mining area of South Wales, making all the right noises re the minerā€™s strike to get the nomination. Then once he was elected became an unreconstructed Blairite, fuck the miners. He became part of the Blair inner circle along with Mandelson, Straw etc, who all had one thing in common, they all came in their pants when they were in close proximity to the fabulously wealthy. Who gave the shyster Philip Green his Knighthood? Why it was the sainted Tony Blair. And Branson, another billionaire who is probably shitting himself as we speak watching Philip Green being roasted, thinking ā€œthere but the the grace of God go Iā€, wondering when it is his turn. I recommend the book, ā€˜Behind The Maskā€™, by Tom Bower for more details. The bestower of his Knighthood? Why itā€™s Tony Blair again. Makes you sick.

The only bit of light relief in the whole saga is watching Jess Phillips, gritting her teeth as Hain beat her to it, congratulating him on his ā€œbraveryā€. Bravery? It could have been called brave if he had stepped out side and made his statement on Parliament Green, when he would have had to take the consequences. But he didnā€™t, he made it Parliament, knowing that he was immune from any possible actions against him. The opposite of bravery surely.

Letā€™s be clear here, Philip Green is a nasty, bullying, disgustingly avaricious individual, but thatā€™s not the point. He should have got his comeuppance in a court of law, for all the world to see. Now, with his intervention, Hain has prejudiced the chance of this happening. Green will surely claim, quite rightly, that if any charges are brought against him he would not get a fair trial. You have to wonder whoā€™s side Hain is really on! Apart from his own of course!

A pox on all their houses.,

6 Likes

Thank you @Nottarf-Krap, put more eloquently than I could have ever done.

But regardless, now the MSM have been effectively given ā€œopen seasonā€ the truth about these NDAā€™s is probably immaterial. Hain and the MSM will get away with what they want and fuck what may or may not be the truthā€¦

2 Likes