You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
the telegraph are not party to any contract with PG.
this is true but it doesn't mean they don't have a contract with those who signed NDA's saying they'll cover any costs associated with accusations of breaching them.
If at the end of the show the final court had decided that the NDA is more important than publsihing, THEN Hain might have a case for circumventing a final court order
hence me saying:
I’d rather Hain had waited until after the court case had finished otherwise it’s all a bit Tommy Robinson shouting outside an ongoing trial
Thanks for the explanation of what's going on Stoner. Now I understand I agree with your take on this.
It would be nice if people now boycotted his shops.
this is true but it doesn’t mean they don’t have a contract with those who signed NDA’s saying they’ll cover any costs associated with accusations of breaching them.
I can hear Telegraph counsel choking on their afternoon tea and biccies from here!
Didn't think he could go down in anyone's estimation but, wow!
Surely anyone with a Supernoodle Mullet must be a bit dodge, eh?
youre not wrong jef, youre not wrong
I can hear Telegraph counsel choking on their afternoon tea and biccies from here!
well if you're in the room with them maybe you can get confirmation?
It would be nice if people now boycotted his shops.
I, for one, shall never enter a BHS again...
That's the last crop top from Topshop I shall buy for myself.
Steve
That’s the last crop top from Topshop I shall buy for myself.
Try saying that after a few shandies.
So, presumably if I wish to grope another person, but don’t want anyone to find out or be prosecuted, I can offer them tens of thousands of pounds as part of a NDA? But as I don’t have tens of thousands of pounds just laying around, presumably I can apply for legal aid to fund my NDA?
If this isn’t the case, it sounds very much like rich scumballs being able to buy their way out of trouble, which I am certain runs contra to the wishes of a majority of folk.
Stoner has it, but the level of ****ishness that PG displays, and the inequity/misuse of NDAs makes me want to like Hain for this .
I didn't laugh quite as much as I did when the news about Alex Salmond broke......but it was close.
For those that have an appetite for a more considered legal and moral analysis of what was going through courts before Hain QC opened his cake hole, try this. It's chewy but good
then use PP to blurt it out
Nuffink to do wiv me guv. I didn’t squeal.
nah, it was that Poddy bloke
I was genuinely shocked by this. He’s always come across as such a lovely bloke.
Its a bit like when it all came out about Saville..... and everyone thought, "why am I surprised by this, it's so obvious now?...."
Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke I reckon. This scandal I mean.
Selective quoting from Stoner’s link, but from my point of view, it rather degrades Stoner’s argument about Hain QC using PP to bypass the NDA. Anyway, Green, and his wife, are thoroughly odious people, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. While Green might see this as an attempt to drag his name through the mud, I find it almost impossible to imagine his reputation being soiled any more than it already is.
There can be no doubt that employers who use NDAs to silence victims and protect harassers degrade the systems of law and employment. And there can be no doubt too that the system creates value in allegations that are false or doubtful. Furthermore, the selling of silence inflates awards and creates mistrust in the system independently of whether the allegations made in such cases are true or false. Silence has an extra value because of the existence of NDAs and that extra value may encourage untrue allegations. It also probably makes the making of untrue allegations safer. But those making the allegations have to be able to stomach the normal consequence of making an allegation, true or false, which appears to include losing your job.
Oh dear......
CZ - the blog doesnt mention anything about what Hain has done. It discusses the conflict between NDA confidentiality and public interest publication.
The Court of Appeal had made an interim injunction, the matter was to be settled over the next few months at another sitting of the Appeal Court.
What Hain has done is not heroic or useful. The matter had not been resolved finally by the courts so his intervention has caused far more problems than his ego things it has solved. Firstly while he didnt name the other parties to the NDAs, two of them mad it clear they didnt wish to be identified, but it's not too hard for some to do some jigsaw identification from the public facts that do exist. Secondly, the court case was likely to be in a position to make caselaw for the permitted and illegal use of NDAs - i.e. prohibit their use in sexual misconduct allegations for example. Since now the case is very unlikely to be heard (as a final injunction on publication is now moot) there is now no opportunity for that case law to be made. This then leaves it to the law makers, the politicians, to propose, sponsor and nursemaid through the houses of parliament and lords a new law. They're kind of busy right now, they're also pretty crap and writing law compared to the judges and are bound to leave some gaps to be exploited by the likes of Green even when they're done with it.
So all in all, yes I agree use of NDAs to cover up appalling behaviour under threat of wealth-back legal support is A BAD THING. Its quite likely that a court may well have had something acceptable to say on it early next year. Now thanks to Hain's ego others like Green get a free run for a few more years yet.
PS, CZ, my use of "Hain QC" was sarcastic. He's just an ex MP.
If there has been a criminal act an NDA does not stop you talking to the police.
The other point made in the article in Stonor's link is that NDA's can be a cheap (all is relative to the very wealthy) means of making stuff go away, which in turn may create a culture of allegation as a means of 'forcing' a settlement rather than face up to an investigation / tribunal. It's a grey area for sure and i'm likely putting myself up to be shot at here, but it is not beyond some to make false allegations on this basis. By removing the ability to use NDA's for this purpose, does it remove this loophole and force people to properly substantiate complaints. In turn we need to still have a system that allows victims to have anonymity / protect them from accusers and the stresses of full on trials as we saw with the US Supreme court bloke recently.
Different area but same idea; I did a brief employment law seminar a few years back, organised by my company for hiring managers about questions that you can/can't ask at interview to avoid allegation of discriminatory practices. They had an example of a black (it's relevant) accounts clerk who was applying routinely for jobs as Finance Directors / CFO's, and when he was rejected was alleging racial discrimination, even though it was clear it was a qualification issue. Yet rather than go to the stress and expense of tribunals many firms were making small (to them) settlements to make it go away. It was only finally when someone called his bluff that it came to light he was running the scam across the country, and was done for fraud or something.
We need a system that protects the victims, while balancing the ability of scammers to work it to their own ends.
No ulterior motive at all then.
Exclusive: Lord Hain is paid adviser to law firm that represented The Telegraph in Sir Philip Green injunction case
Good find wwaswas, comments are interesting too:
The fact that the MotR and two other experienced appeal judges decided the way that they did strongly suggests that the behavior complained of is not explicitly criminal, at least not clearly of a serious criminal nature.
If an NDA purported to control information concerning a murder, for example, not only would no injunctive relief be forthcoming, but the police would be involved forthwith.
For the first and last time I think I might have some sympathy for Green.
SO we now have the injunction withdrawn by Green.
Ive just been listening to Hain on BBC News24 doubling down, saying that "whether or not the judges have got their interpretation of the law right or wrong, the law is wrong" Jeez. Arrogant much?
The judges have reiterated that the signatories to the NDA are under ongoing obligations to honour their contracts. I'd be getting worried if I were any one of them that spoke to the Telegraph.
The Telegraph now promise to publish everything tonight/tomorrow.
They need to tread very carefully as if they disclose anything that can be traced back to a source under the NDA then that signatory will then become the focus of PG's lawyers. And as alluded to above three months ago, the chances of Telegraph insurers underwriting any losses incurred by a source for a story is going to be pretty unlikely.