[Closed] British #metoo cover up

Dunno, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he turned out to have a face which resembled Sid James scrotum.

Spent 10 mins messing about with a VPN and trawling the International news agencies and it seems only the Torygraph knows and they can't say.

Well it’s #notme

"They say the five staff making the claims had been "compromised by settlement agreements" and received "substantial" payouts to stay silent."

But but.. he must be dragged over the coals and put in the public stocks for our satisfaction!

Hm.  It seems they can't name him as there are only "allegations" currently and it's going to trial later.  Which seems right and proper to me, why drag someone's name through the mud before they're proven guilty?  Wait till the court case, then string the bastard up.

Wait till the court case, see if they're proven guilty, then, and only then string the bastard up.

Hm.  It seems they can’t name him as there are only “allegations” currently and it’s going to trial later.  Which seems right and proper to me, why drag someone’s name through the mud before they’re proven guilty?  Wait till the court case, then string the bastard up.

The argument usually follows that by releasing details more victims come forward, which brings more evidence, which makes a conviction more likely. Holding the trial in secret should only really be necessary if there's a risk the jury could be influenced.

Will JHJ be along to tell us shortly

If JHJ (or anyone else) blabs on here Mark and Chipps are going to get taken to the cleaners and STW will be no more.

There appear to have been 5 x payments and non disclosure agreements put in place, would seem fairly damning to me 🤔

The naming of the person / JHJ comments were supposed to be tongue in cheek; apologies if taken wrong. Definitely not looking to name them and cause problems for the site owners.

But as the can's opened; despite NDA's and hush money exchanging hands, this is criminal activity (bullying, sexual harrassment and intimidation acc to the paper). You shouldn't be able to buy silence in this sort of of instance. While I also find it morally wrong that footballer X can buy someone's silence because they can't keep it in their pants but don't want their wife to know, that isn't illegal.

Whoever it is I'll guess he's not a Virgin? 

So how would this go if one of the employees who signed an NDA decided to speak up anyway? Can you sue someone for breach of contract if they're reporting a crime?

Maybe he is old school and thinks he is entitled to a little of the sugar sugar since he was the one paying wages.

Can you sue someone for breach of contract if they’re reporting a crime

Being interviewed by a newspaper journalist is a rather circuitous way of reporting a crime?

Some MP will probably blab during PMQ’s tomorrow.

Parliamentary privilege innit.

Whilst I don't think the non-disclosure agreements should prevent people being held to account, I can't help but feeling that having decided to go public those concerned should pay the money back. (Or at least donate it to charity)

Whoever it is I’ll guess he’s not a Virgin? 

i thought that too.

There's an article on the Telegraph site by Jenson Button......

I'll bet he's got a vacuum cleaner in his house or maybe a hand drier.

!?

The reality is that rather than a well known name it’s more likely to be some guy who the general public have never even heard of but , when eventually outed, will become a household name synonymous with “ pervy scumbag”

Taking out the injunction was probably the worst mistake they could have made

Some MP will probably blab during PMQ’s tomorrow

Only if you can find one who's not already getting their personal/party income "augmented" by said captain of industry

So how would this go if one of the employees who signed an NDA decided to speak up anyway? Can you sue someone for breach of contract if they’re reporting a crime?

I do know someone who has been sued for an NDA breach, wasn’t a massive case nor payout in damages but it did make the middle pages of the FT back in 09’

He didn’t seem to mind and hopped into another well paid job on the back of the case...

was the NDA to keep them quiet about a crime though, or an NDA covering trade secrets?

But after the boss facing the accusations was contacted for comment by the paper in July, he and a number of his senior staff applied for an injunction to stop the details being published.

So if the paper hadn't contacted him for comment could they have just published the story?

was the NDA to keep them quiet about a crime though, or an NDA covering trade secrets?

It was both.

There was fraud involved and the way the organisation ran that side of the business.

So if the paper hadn’t contacted him for comment could they have just published the story?

The press need to offer a right to reply before publishing

Is that Captain Slow ?

🤣😳🔥

Father Jack.

Thought I'd posted this;

Good primer on the legal side of things here - Synopsis: Legally: judges aren't certain that the NDA's will trump the public interest but think it's 'likely' - full decision in the new year. Really: it'll get out anyway.

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1055068630671679488

Why has the person making the allegations not gone public anf5tsken the money instead? It seems to me that the meetoo thing is all about money rather than dealing with inappropriate or illegal behaviour

May not be too long to find out: https://www.ft.com/content/79528cde-d75c-11e8-ab8e-6be0dcf18713

I find myself thinking of a figure at a certain large media agency conglomerate who recently parted ways with his employer over an investigation of allegations of misuse of company resources for entertaining women, and other claims not unrelated to the above.

ETA: sounds like the Telegraph has been working on this for 8 months(?), fwiw. Also seems like other non-British news outlets don't actually know who it is.

Yes, women collectively getting together en mass and planning on getting sexually assaulted and coerced so that in a couple of years time they can start a hashtag movement to make a little money.

Eh? Sarcasm ??

😳🤷‍♂️

Why has the person making the allegations not gone public anf5tsken the money instead? It seems to me that the meetoo thing is all about money rather than dealing with inappropriate or illegal behaviour

No mention of money changing hands between the paper and the alleged victims. And if you were the victims would you

a) just post it on STW and be done with it and hope it went viral with no corroborating investigation and no support to defend against the inevitable blowback

b) Go to a paper who can do the investigation to corroborate your story, contact other victims, get lawyers involved and generally give you support through the process rather than potentially having to fight a court case over the breach of the NDA on your own?

So if the paper hadn’t contacted him for comment could they have just published the story?

I wonder if he received it on his e-mailer? (on the assumption that as it's the torygraph it's more likely to be a labour peer/donor than anything likely to damage May).

My cashly?

on the assumption that as it’s the torygraph it’s more likely to be a labour peer/donor than anything likely to damage May

Unlikely given that Jess Phillips is the Lab MP willing to make it public if a victim asks her to.

i reckon its captainflash, expect paperclips shares to plummet.

Don't be silly a_a, Flash has to beat them off with a shitty stick.

I know this because I looked it up on my Amstrad computer... hmm?

Why has the person making the allegations not gone public anf5tsken the money instead? It seems to me that the meetoo thing is all about money rather than dealing with inappropriate or illegal behaviour

Lawyers advice given to them at the time - you are a minnow and likely to get nowhere against this shark and sharks lawyers won't sit at the table unless you put a financial figure on the table - as far as I could make out from R4 news item

Flash has to beat them off with a shitty stick

no wonder he gets them to sign NDA's...

Unlikely given that Jess Phillips is the Lab MP willing to make it public if a victim asks her to.

Given the state of both parties at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if either party had a lot of MP's who'd happily stab eithers leadership in the back.

Why has the person making the allegations not gone public anf5tsken the money instead? It seems to me that the meetoo thing is all about money rather than dealing with inappropriate or illegal behaviour

Two main reasons. 1) he's a "big hitter" and you're a nobody, so we're doing you a favour by offering you money. Now go away and be quiet.

2) Guaranteed pot of money to shut up, or huge risk of losing a ton of money by pursuing it further.

It's well-established in all sorts of circles. For example, several former employers (FTSE 100 type firms) had a nasty habit of not welcoming back women who'd gone on maternity leave. They'd go on maternity leave with all sorts of assurances (and obviously British law), come back and find they were out of a job. In every single case, the company paid them just enough to ensure they didn't want to take it any further. Surprisingly common, and is a large part of the modern HR department's job...

Two main reasons. 1) he’s a “big hitter” and you’re a nobody, so we’re doing you a favour by offering you money. Now go away and be quiet.

2) Guaranteed pot of money to shut up, or huge risk of losing a ton of money by pursuing it further.

& don't forget number 3 - unwanted fame/notoriety for the victim see the recent Brett Kavannagh stuff

The key word in NDA is 'agreement' . Provided that both parties entered into it without duress and after legal advice, then that's that. My understanding of the ruling is that this was the case in all five of these, with no evidence of duress and legal advice provided.

If the people involved have taken the money willingly and know what the NDA means, then I can't see how anyone could successfully apply to get the agreement voided.

Commentators today have all said these particular cases were not the ones to run to court with - all parties had legal and financial advice before signing, no evidence  of any pressure, duress or abuse of power to coerce them into signing. In which case, I'm off the view that if consenting adults want to come to their own private agreement regarding a payoff, good luck to them and it's not my business.

If journalists and MPs want to earn their salaries and my respect, maybe they should investigate those who have bullied their victims into unwilling silence rather than going for an easy one.

Kind of, kind of not. I think part of it is whether it's just 'bad' behaviour, whatever that means nowadays, vs illegal / criminal behaviour, and also whether the public interest to expose such behaviour outweighs the right to privacy. as always, the secret barrister covers it well (link on prev page)

As someone on there pointed out as well - are NDAs illegal contracts and thus void if they bury a potential criminal act or amount to a bribe?

Also interesting - there are 5 'victims' of the allegations, and 2 of these apparently don't want to break the NDA's / have their names and stories (potentially) revealed.

Good job we have some senile old buffers in woolly hats to unpick this for us 😉

- also define 'duress'

'This is a big offer, might be more than you'd get if you take this to court if you win at all, and you don't have to have your private life raked over in public'..... might not be arm twisted behind the back duress, but is a form of. IMHO.

😂

I thought sex crime victims had a right to anonymity anyway? Thus, this feels remarkably like one rule for the upper classes and another rule for the rest of us. NDA's still being in effect after criminality sounds a lot like people looking after their old school mates. They seem to get lesser sentences as well, for being upstanding members of thier own social circ....I mean community.

I'm faultly ignorant of the law though.

In which case, I’m off the view that if consenting adults want to come to their own private agreement regarding a payoff, good luck to them and it’s not my business.

Dunno it seems a bit like buying justice. Not really the way society should work. That said as problems with NDAs go I would rate it at the less concerning end. The really worrying ones are those where people are brought off reporting things which could whilst probably not illegal certainly have a major impact on others. For example the occasional reporting in Private Eye about doctors being paid off regarding bad practice.

I'm not aware of the specific offences alleged here, but if a victim, after legal advice, takes money and an NDA rather than take criminal or civil action, that's their right and it shouldn't be overturned to satisfy media curiosity.

Obviously, other cases will have different circumstances and my view may well be different. From having read parts of the judgement and heard independent commentators talking about it, this was not the case to be making a stand over.

I’m not aware of the specific offences alleged here, but if a victim, after legal advice, takes money and an NDA rather than take criminal or civil action, that’s their right and it shouldn’t be overturned to satisfy media curiosity.

what kind of specific offences do you draw the line at ? can a rapist buy a victims silence, how about a pussy groper,  tit fondler....

But sex crime victims don't get named anyway, do they? Unless they choose to be. So the point is a bit moot isn't it?

But as the can’s opened; despite NDA’s and hush money exchanging hands, this is criminal activity (bullying, sexual harrassment and intimidation acc to the paper)

Intimidation might be a criminal act. I'm less sure about "bullying". Intimidation would need some qualification.

but if a victim, after legal advice, takes money and an NDA rather than take criminal or civil action, that’s their right and it shouldn’t be overturned to satisfy media curiosity.

1/ if it's a criminal act, it's a criminal act, media curiosity doesn't come into it. As I asked before (ok, passed on someone else's question) is paying money to hush up a criminal act, whether under duress or not, an illegal contract.

At extreme. Someone commits a big crime, someone else knows about it and doesn't inform the police. Under normal circumstances they are an accessory of sorts (accessory, obstruction, whatever). If a tenner exchanges hands in return for their silence, are they then absolved of being an accessory because they had an agreement that was entered into voluntarily.

2/ Is it just media curiosity or public interest, that workplace bullies, potentially sexual harassment, etc. can buy silence?

A friend of a friend told me that the businessman in question is.... [name removed -Mod edit] 🙂

Cougar

Subscriber
Hm. It seems they can’t name him as there are only “allegations” currently and it’s going to trial later - and his name isn't Alex Salmond. Which seems right and proper to me, why drag someone’s name through the mud before they’re proven guilty?

FTFY

and his name isn’t Alex Salmond

I know. He must be kicking himself for not thinkng of using the cash all the fanatics have given him to fund some NDA's. (It would've been a bit late obvs)

I'm obviously not making my point very well. My point relates to these particular cases, as I've heard the judgement reported.

I've got no idea what these crimes were supposed to be. But not all bullying and harassment is actually a crime, so I'm assuming it's at the lower end of the scale, and as I said, the victims were happy with a deal after independent legal advice (according to the reported judgement) so I don't thinks it's for us to call in these specific cases.

Obviously more serious harassment, bullying etc raises wider questions - crimes should be punished, criminals exposed, but nothing I've heard about these particular cases from what the judges discussed in the judgement makes me think we are at that level of criminality. I like some facts before I sharpen my pitchfork.

Very fair points, but the counter is that we haven't heard what the actual offences are, so to simply say 'They signed an NDA, case closed' is not correct either.

I mean I heard an interview on the Radio that alleged some quite serious stuff, sexual harassment, racism, etc.

This might not be the best case / example - the appeal court has admitted as such by requesting that a higher court reviews, rather than ruling immediately - but the use of NDA's by the rich and powerful to gag victims is broadly speaking, wrong. That is not what they are for, whether they are entered into 'voluntarily' or not.

But again; are NDAs illegal contracts and thus void if they are used to cover up a criminal act

Saying they were happy with a payout at the time so should back off now is a bit disingenuous.

If you're told that the rich powerful person is likely to get off due to lack of evidence and him being able to afford the best legal advice, "but here's some cash to make everyone's life easier" , you're probably going to take the cash.

Once you're aware that it isn't just you, and that the weight of evidence is now in your favour, it changes things.

A legal  expert interveiwed  on the radio that NDAs could not be used to cover up criminal acts.Criminal law trumps legal confidentiality agreements.You can break an NDA anyway but you may be liable to repay any sum received.

What about that slimy guy who bankrolled Brexit?

What about that slimy guy who bankrolled Brexit?

Whoever it is I’ll guess he’s not a Virgin? 

Exactly the same thoughts...

Been named in Parliament as Philip Green.

Which I'm sure comes as a surprise to precisely no-one.

Scumbag is, as Scumbag does.

Soon to lose the “Sir” - one hopes

Absolutely no surprise at that

🤣🤦‍♀️

Whodafunkit..

If it is actually him..obvz

Wow Green, really I am amazed, he seems like one of the good guys *

* sarcasm

pretty shitty action by Hain.

The matter is currently under legal proceedings. i.e. there's some smart people who know lots about this stuff and paid to pass judgment on it, chewing it over at the moment.

But no. Mr Hain think's he knows better. Im sure his legal thought process and logical analysis of the situation will stand up to scrutiny when he publishes it. What's that you say? He's not actually thought this through just jumped on a bandwagon? Well colour me bright orange. Arrogant ****.

Stoner - I am sympathetic but for most people someone who's rich enough to buy the silence of people they've abused and then spend half a million on legal fees to keep it hushed up deserves a bit of a name and shame.

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 but I also don't think an NDA should be used to protect someone's vanity. I won;t say his good name because he doesn't have one.

Bit disappointed it's not Branson.

So thats what he needed the pension money for......

So what happens to the money that he paid for the NDA does he get a refund? Do the people he paid to silence have to send the money back?

the people he paid to be quiet haven;t had anything published yet, have they?

I'm sure the Telegraph have good advice that either they won;t have to pay it back or will cover any costs they run up defending a case.

The cosig to the NDAs havent breached their personal contract with him so no need to pay anything back unless one of them passed PGs name on to Hain. People seem to be confusing the NDA with privacy injunctions. All that was in place was an interim injunction while a higher court weighed up the merits of private commercial contract disclosure versus public interest publication. It seems some people cant wait for justice to take its course. Maybe its time for a good ol lynching to make a return.

ww - the telegraph are not party to any contract with PG. There's no liability to them if there is disclosure except in doing so against a court order. Hain has used PP to go around that TEMPRORAY court order. Because he's a dick.

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. But jumping the gun is just a dick move.

while a higher court weighed up the merits of private commercial contract disclosure versus public interest publication.

Or as others might see it, whether a NDA is a proper or even legal means to cover up criminal acts.

[edit] but I don't disagree; once a court has decided to grant a temporary injunction so a higher court can think about it, to then use PP to blurt it out is wrong.