Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 12:38:47 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 12:38:47 GMT
This whole legal gagging thing is getting silly. Nobody is allowed to name the person involved in England or Wales, but anywhere else in the world, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, it's ok!
It's 'verging' on the ridiculous !
|
|
|
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 12:49:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by baggins on Oct 25, 2018 12:49:35 GMT
This whole legal gagging thing is getting silly. Nobody is allowed to name the person involved in England or Wales, but anywhere else in the world, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, it's ok! It's 'verging' on the ridiculous ! Are we playing name the fez? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 13:18:03 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 13:18:03 GMT
This whole legal gagging thing is getting silly. Nobody is allowed to name the person involved in England or Wales, but anywhere else in the world, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, it's ok! It's 'verging' on the ridiculous ! Are we playing name the fez? Eh? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 14:33:48 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 14:33:48 GMT
and the name is now out. It's Phillip Green.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Oct 25, 2018 14:52:45 GMT
and the name is now out. It's Phillip Green. I notice it was an MP who said his name in Parliament, am I right in thinking anything said in Parliament you can't be 'done' for? Parliamentary rules or something, or am I completely wrong? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 16:19:01 GMT
and the name is now out. It's Phillip Green. I notice it was an MP who said his name in Parliament, am I right in thinking anything said in Parliament you can't be 'done' for? Parliamentary rules or something, or am I completely wrong? No, you are correct. It's some sort of Freedom of Speech law. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 17:32:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 17:32:45 GMT
Nil Point.
It was Peter Hain, in The House of Lords. No longer an MP, the filthy, pro European liberal.
Its under the rule of "Parliamentary Privilege" that allows him to do it without fear of litigation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 17:40:48 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 17:40:48 GMT
and the name is now out. It's Phillip Green. I notice it was an MP who said his name in Parliament, am I right in thinking anything said in Parliament you can't be 'done' for? Parliamentary rules or something, or am I completely wrong? Parliamentary Privilege I believe. They only seem to use it in situations like this, playing up to the crowd for cheap publicity when it's a popular news story. MP's should have the balls to say something outside of their protected environment like the rest of us. They are pretty much free to make any slanderous comments or unproven allegations with no comeback. If someone is happy to take the cash and sign up to confidentiality agreements they should respect them. If they can't adhere to the terms that they and their legal advisors agreed they should be forced to return any monies paid. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 17:43:47 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 17:43:47 GMT
I notice it was an MP who said his name in Parliament, am I right in thinking anything said in Parliament you can't be 'done' for? Parliamentary rules or something, or am I completely wrong? Parliamentary Privilege I believe. They only seem to use it in situations like this, playing up to the crowd for cheap publicity when it's a popular news story. MP's should have the balls to say something outside of their protected environment like the rest of us. They are pretty much free to make any slanderous comments or unproven allegations with no comeback. If someone is happy to take the cash and sign up to confidentiality agreements they should respect them. If they can't adhere to the terms that they and their legal advisors agreed they should be forced to return any monies paid. I agree with that. If someone has taken the cash, then they should abide by the NDA. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,461 
|
Post by pirate on Oct 25, 2018 17:44:32 GMT
Sir Phillip surrounds himself with some very nefarious characters too.     One worker at BHS says: "I think it’s totally disgusting that Sir Philip can take hundreds of millions of pounds out of the company and give it as a 'dividend' to his wife who pays zero tax in Monaco."
The Financial Times Alphaville blog asks: "Would 11,000 BHS workers still have jobs if Tina Green hadn’t siphoned £1 billion out of the business?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 17:53:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 17:53:23 GMT
I notice it was an MP who said his name in Parliament, am I right in thinking anything said in Parliament you can't be 'done' for? Parliamentary rules or something, or am I completely wrong? Parliamentary Privilege I believe. They only seem to use it in situations like this, playing up to the crowd for cheap publicity when it's a popular news story. MP's should have the balls to say something outside of their protected environment like the rest of us. They are pretty much free to make any slanderous comments or unproven allegations with no comeback. If someone is happy to take the cash and sign up to confidentiality agreements they should respect them. If they can't adhere to the terms that they and their legal advisors agreed they should be forced to return any monies paid. I don't think Peter Hain signed an NDA for cash with Mr Green. To be honest I have never heard what could be legally defined as a slanderous comment being made in the HoC or the HoL. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 18:04:54 GMT
Someone who has signed an NDA has presumably made it public hence the newspapers looking to run the story leading to the gagging order. I think you probably knew I wasn't implying Hain had taken cash and breached an NDA.
It was pretty obvious that an MP or Lord would grandstand for self publicity one it became known it was the widely hated Philip Green at the centre of the story. I'm sure there must be some good reasoning for Parliamentary Privilege but to me it's normally abused by the member looking for publicity. Hain had probably disappeared from people's memories for years now but suddenly his face is in every news bulletin and all of tomorrow's newspapers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 18:08:31 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 18:08:31 GMT
Someone who has signed an NDA has presumably made it public hence the newspapers looking to run the story leading to the gagging order. I think you probably knew I wasn't implying Hain had taken cash and breached an NDA. It was pretty obvious that an MP or Lord would grandstand for self publicity one it became known it was the widely hated Philip Green at the centre of the story. I'm sure there must be some good reasoning for Parliamentary Privilege but to me it's normally abused by the member looking for publicity. Hain had probably disappeared from people's memories for years now but suddenly his face is in every news bulletin and all of tomorrow's newspapers. From what I understand, the Daily Telegraph got hold of the story. Neither Green, nor the woman involved, wanted the story to appear, so Green took out the gagging order against the Daily Telegraph. However, as I stated earlier, that ruling only applied to England and Wales, so it was bound to break at some point ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 18:16:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 18:16:38 GMT
Someone who has signed an NDA has presumably made it public hence the newspapers looking to run the story leading to the gagging order. I think you probably knew I wasn't implying Hain had taken cash and breached an NDA. It was pretty obvious that an MP or Lord would grandstand for self publicity one it became known it was the widely hated Philip Green at the centre of the story. I'm sure there must be some good reasoning for Parliamentary Privilege but to me it's normally abused by the member looking for publicity. Hain had probably disappeared from people's memories for years now but suddenly his face is in every news bulletin and all of tomorrow's newspapers. From what I understand, the Daily Telegraph got hold of the story. Neither Green, nor the woman involved, wanted the story to appear, so Green took out the gagging order against the Daily Telegraph. However, as I stated earlier, that ruling only applied to England and Wales, so it was bound to break at some point ! That's my understanding, that The Telegraph have been building the case for nearly 8 months. Allegedly this is about more than one case, which is why, allegedly, The Telegraph have been like a dog with a bone on this one. It may well be that Green has broken current laws on abuse. If so the Hain was right to out him. Lesser mortals, although no less guilty, don't have the financial muscle to shut it down. There has been so much abuse being uncovered it's only by bringing this out into the public domain that people in general will be able to understand what's been going on. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,461
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 20:17:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by pirate on Oct 25, 2018 20:17:51 GMT
From what I understand, the Daily Telegraph got hold of the story. Neither Green, nor the woman involved, wanted the story to appear, so Green took out the gagging order against the Daily Telegraph. However, as I stated earlier, that ruling only applied to England and Wales, so it was bound to break at some point ! That's my understanding, that The Telegraph have been building the case for nearly 8 months. Allegedly this is about more than one case, which is why, allegedly, The Telegraph have been like a dog with a bone on this one. It may well be that Green has broken current laws on abuse. If so the Hain was right to out him. Lesser mortals, although no less guilty, don't have the financial muscle to shut it down. There has been so much abuse being uncovered it's only by bringing this out into the public domain that people in general will be able to understand what's been going on. I wonder if Phillip Green's friend Simon Cowell can help in any way? Remember this is a man that hired Max Clifford (later a convicted sex offender) straight after paying £50,000 of the sex offender Jonathan King's bail money. As an aside, Cowell has also donated $150,000 to a foreign army (the Israeli Defence Forces) and the "most moral army in the world" also accepted money from... people.com/celebrity/pee-wee-actor-settles-kiddie-porn-case/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 20:22:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 20:22:01 GMT
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,461
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 20:26:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by pirate on Oct 25, 2018 20:26:56 GMT
These monsters run the world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 20:53:12 GMT
via mobile
pirate likes this
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 20:53:12 GMT
These monsters run the world. Disgraceful, now illegal, behaviour been going on for decades. |
|
|
|
NDA's.
Oct 25, 2018 22:39:25 GMT
Post by aghast on Oct 25, 2018 22:39:25 GMT
Sir Philip Green. What a rotter.
Members of the Commons and Lords have to be very careful about how they use their privileges, but, in this case, I think it is justified.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 6:47:24 GMT
These monsters run the world. If Bill Clinton can get away with it, then anyone can. |
|
